University of Sydney

Change doesn’t happen by doing more of the same

September 12, 2025ACARA, AITSL, Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO), ESA, Teaching and Learning CommissionAARE blog, ACARA, AERO, AITSL, ESA, Jason Clare, Nikki Brunker, University of Sydney

Jason Clare’s announced plans to dissolve ACARA, AITSL, ESA, and AERO, into the Teaching and Learning Commission raises questions regarding the need and function, and also what the focal issues are and how they may be addressed.

The Teaching and Learning Commission will seek to address issues of inequity and student attrition from public schools through increased standardisation of teaching with greater emphasis on explicit instruction, literacy teaching narrowed to phonics instruction, and classroom management.

The Mpartwe Declaration set out the Australian goals for schooling as:

Goal 1: The Australian education system promotes excellence and equity

Goal 2: All young Australians become:

conﬁdent and creative individuals
successful lifelong learners
active and informed members of the community.

As one of the most inequitable schooling systems in the world, Australia has a long way to go in achieving these goals. Australia’s response has been to double down on standardisation, though is standardisation a solution or simply creating and exacerbating the issue?

Will increased standardisation raise student academic achievement?

Sally Larsen has repeatedly shown the claims for falling achievement are inaccurate, yet these claims continue as the basis for changes in policy, practice, and oversight. The tenacious hold to these claims raises questions as to motives well beyond student achievement.

The issue that needs exploration and discussion is what achievement can and should be. Central to standardisation is the focus on narrowed areas for learning, primarily literacy and numeracy. With narrowed focus comes narrowed approaches designed with the intention of high achievement for all. Lost is recognition for learning beyond the narrowed focus, for example Australian students’ achievement in creativity. Also lost is the value for human growth and the purpose of schooling reaching well beyond learning.

Will the Teaching and Learning Commission open discussion as to the purpose of schooling and education more broadly and in turn open a way for a diverse array of success?

Will increased standardisation reduce student exodus from public schools?

Jason Clare’s creation of the Teaching and Learning Commission seeks to address rising rates of school dropout and attrition from public sector schools. Before doubling down on standardisation which has been growing for over a decade (the same time in which concerns for achievement, equity, and behaviour have risen), it would be helpful to look more closely at why children and young people are turning away from public schools and what they are turning to.

Home education and special assistance schools are the antithesis of standardisation, yet are the fastest growing sectors in education.

When I explored the experiences of families who home educate, the random selection of families showed standardisation to be the central factor that ‘pushed’ them into home education. Home education had not been an active choice, rather a last option the families felt pushed into taking as the standardised approaches at school were not meeting the needs of their children. Home education is the fastest growing sector of education and anecdotal evidence so far suggests the recent (post pandemic) upswing is in response to the increasingly standardised schooling not meeting the diversity of student needs.

Within independent schools, the fastest growing area is special assistance schools. When considering the attrition of public school students, it is important to recognise that not all independent schools are the same. Independent schools are more often thought about in the debate over funding and assertions of ‘double dipping’ into school funding and high parent fees. The vast majority of independent schools however, are low fee schools, and some (a growing number) are free providing the flexibility and responsiveness public schools were unable to provide.

Will the Teaching and Learning Commission explore the qualitative research that provides nuanced understanding as to why students are leaving public schools, and in turn support public schools to flexibly respond to the diverse needs of students?

Will standardisation address Teacher Workload?

The announcement of the Teaching and Learning Commission comes hot on the heels of the recent interim report from the Productivity Commission which proposed a national database of lesson plans. A strong argument behind the provision of lesson plans for teachers is workload. A recent UK report into the impact of standardisation showed there was no difference on teacher workload between standardised and non-standardised approaches given the need for modification to meet student needs.

In my work with pre-service teachers I have found the necessity for them to modify externally developed lesson plans to be responsive to the range of learning, motivation, engagement, and developmental needs in a classroom takes longer than when they create their own lesson plans to meet the needs of the children they are working with.

The Productivity Commission seemingly ignored their own consultations where a key theme was the need for:

“Empowering teachers. Teachers should be supported with professional development to enhance their lesson planning skills (NCEC, qr. 29; Teach for Australia, qr. 31). Government policy should encourage innovation and flexibility in lesson design and delivery (AITSL, qr. 55; ESA, qr. 67).”

Standardisation is not about improved teaching nor teacher workload, rather it is a quest to ‘teacher-proof’ teaching. Here we might ask what are we ‘teacher-proofing’ from? Standardisation reduces the capacity for teachers to develop the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. For example, how might a teacher develop to the level of Highly Accomplished Teacher when the standards require: “Exhibit innovative practice in the selection and organisation of content and delivery of learning and teaching programs”. Standardisation does not allow for innovation, and without innovation we will continue to replicate the status quo of inequity.

Will the Teaching and Learning Commission listen to teachers as to what is weighing them down in their workload to find ways to build time for the core work of teaching beyond the classroom?

Will increased standardisation of Initial Teacher Education Address Inequity?

A role for the Teaching and Learning Commission will be to double down on Initial Teacher Education to ensure compliance to the TEEP Report with focus on development of practical strategies for teaching and classroom management. The direction for increased standardisation in ITE has been widely critiqued not least for the lack of evidence on which claims have been based.

Initial Teacher Education is frequently landed with claims of teaching too much theory not enough practice. Such suggestions highlight a view of teaching as performance and not the complex relational interplay that teachers know all too well.

Standard 1 of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers is ‘Know students and how they learn’. There is very good reason for this being the first standard – teaching is relational. The impact of teaching is dependent on the relationship built between teacher and students and across the learning environment. Underpinning how teachers form relationships is knowledge of learning theory, theories of development, and more. Value for theory to inform teaching practice is integral to pre-service teachers meeting the graduate standards.

Standardisation is the very thing we need to avoid in Initial Teacher Education and instead support teachers as intelligent, capable professionals to ‘know the students and how they learn’ to design teaching for diverse learning needs across varied contexts.

Will the Teaching and Learning Commission value the complex interplay of theory and practice in developing new teachers able to design for the diverse array of student needs into the future?

Will increased ‘Evidence-Based Practice’ Address Inequity?

The announcement on the creation of the Teaching and Learning Commission comes before the report on the inquiry into AERO. Though perhaps not before we know the findings.

AERO has been commended on the provision of “data-driven research and swift distribution of user-friendly advice for teachers”. This is an interesting and tautological claim given all research is data-driven, though highlights the value for specific data as promoted by AERO.

The pre-digestion of research disempowers teachers, seeking to simplify the complexity of teaching. Pre-digested research from AERO and other organisations such as The Grattan Institute have been critiqued heavily for the narrow selection of research (reliant on randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses), misrepresentation of research, reliance on self-referencing and oversimplification leading to errors. The reductionist view of research to directions for teachers to follow as per the emphasis on explicit instruction (or direct instruction as intended), removes teachers from a pedagogic role, reducing teaching to performance.

Will the Teaching and Learning Commission explore ways to support teachers to engage with research and be researchers to make decisions relevant to their students, and in turn re-position teaching as a desirable profession for people to join (and stay in)?

Not ‘what works’ but ‘what works here today’

Colleagues and I have been working with teachers, school leaders, and representatives of education organisations across the public, Catholic, and independent sectors, along with academics. Our aim has been to draw together researchers and educators to understand to how we may work together to raise awareness to the problems associated with reliance on a narrow view of evidence-based practice, and how we may open conversation for support and grow the enriched evidence-based practice of teaching.

We have found agreement across sectors as to the detrimental impact of evidence-based practice resulting in standardisation seen to exacerbate inequities in the constraints placed on schools to make decisions relevant to their contexts. While the dominant narrow view of evidence-based practice seeks ‘what works’ one school-based researcher told us the focus in schools is ‘what works here today’. Research can only ever provide insight to what has worked in the past whether that be years ago or yesterday. It is the role of those in schools to interpret research with the evidence from existing practice and evidence from students to determine what will work in their context at any given time.

The UK report into the impact of standardisation showed reduced self-efficacy and autonomy amongst teachers using standardised approaches. Self-efficacy and autonomy are essential to teacher ongoing professional learning that may enable equitable outcomes for all students. Autonomy has been raised throughout our work with teachers and school leaders where their emphasis has been on autonomy to engage with evidence for themselves, to be the decision makers and designers of teaching.

Will the Teaching and Learning Commission work to rebuild teacher professionalism through empowering them with autonomy to engage with the full scope of evidence in context to create teaching for learning?

Finally, will the Teaching and Learning Commission support schools to achieve the Australian goals for schooling? Not through further standardisation, no.

Nicole Brunker is a senior lecturer in the School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney. She was a teacher and principal before moving into Initial Teacher Education where she has led foundational units of study in pedagogy, sociology, psychology and philosophy. Her research interests include school experience, alternative paths of learning, Initial Teacher Education pedagogy, and innovative qualitative methodologies. She’s on LInkedIn and on X:

Childcare: When profit is the motivator, we should be worried

July 21, 2025Early Childhood, Early childhood education and careAARE blog, Early childhood, Erin Harper, Rachel Wilson, University of Sydney, University of Technology Sydney

The Australian early childcare sector is experiencing a relentless surge in media attention. It has exposed significant concerns about children’s safety and the quality of early childhood education (ECE) across Australia. Coverage includes multiple and widespread abuse incidents, inappropriate discipline, unsafe sleep practices, serious mistreatment, and seemingly ineffectual regulation.

Evidence from the Early Learning Work Matters project points to systemic issues sitting beneath the diverse array of significant concerns across the Australian ECE sector. In ECE, where educator-child interactions are known to be the most significant contributor to individual child outcomes and service quality, educators’ experiences of work and children’s experiences of ECE are inextricably interwoven.

Current concerns around the diminishing quality of educator training programs, increasing casualisation of workforce, along with high turnover rates, attrition, and burnout – are all related to the current concerns around child safety. And yet quality education and care is about so much more than ‘just’ child safety – child safety should be a given.

Early Learning Work Matters

Our latest publication from the Early Learning Work Matters project focuses on educator workload. We surveyed 570 Australian ECE educators. They reported widespread concerns including heavy workloads, particularly non-contact work, regular unpaid hours, and limited and inconsistent access to entitled breaks. Critically, over 70% of educators reported feeling concerned that children are not receiving enough of their time. They also reported that educator workloads in their service are so heavy that they are reducing quality for children. Overall, educators report the nature of their workload and working conditions are reducing their capacity to engage in quality interactions, and to provide a quality program overall.

In the current climate, conditions for both educators and children at large are suboptimal. Genuine and meaningful reform requires thoughtful consideration of the system dynamics that have evolved allowing the current concerning conditions and associated risks to develop.

Systems Theory is an interdisciplinary framework that examines how different parts of a system interact and align to produce outcomes—often in complex, dynamic, and sometimes unintended ways. Rooted in the work of thinkers like Ludwig von Bertalanffy and refined through fields such as ecology, and organisational studies, Systems Theory encourages us to look beyond individual components to understand the interdependencies, feedback loops, and structural conditions that shape behaviours and outcomes.

We need a whole-of-system approach

The diverse concerns evident across ECE in Australia do not need a diverse array of isolated inquiries and solutions. What we need is a whole-of-system approach. That’s an approach where all concerns, such as risks to child safety, heavy workloads for educators and concerns around diminishing quality of educator training, are not separate but treated as facets of the same complex situation.

A key insight from Systems Theory is that elements within a system—people, organisations, regulations, funding flows—respond to the incentives and motivators embedded in the system design. These incentives can be explicit (such as financial rewards or compliance requirements) or implicit (such as reputational pressures). Critically, systems tend to ‘produce what they are designed to produce’. That doesn’t mean they necessarily produce their stated goals, or societal good more broadly. Rather, systems produce what the system design incentivises and promotes.

What’s the big picture?

To understand the ‘big picture’, we first need to ask: what does the current system incentivise and promote? And then critically, how can we shift this, such that quality education and care for young children remains front and centre?

In Australia, where 70% of long day care services are operated by for-profit providers, and 32% are large providers, Systems Theory offers a powerful lens for analysis. When profits and market competition are primary motivators, incentives may prioritise cost efficiency, occupancy rates, and shareholder returns over pedagogical quality or child wellbeing. This can shape service delivery in subtle but systemic ways, for example: limiting educator-child ratios, reducing opportunities for professional development, or skewing investments away from relational, high-quality interactions, toward standardised, scalable models.

As part of an earlier phase of the Early Learning Work Matters project, degree-qualified early childhood teachers were interviewed about their experiences and perspectives of work. Several participants commented on their experience of competing demands, with one sharing: “You’re constantly trying to keep all these different parties happy, and that’s before you even get to the kids, which really should be the number one, but aren’t”.

Not just the experiences of a few

At times like this, it is important to note that these are not just the experiences of a few, these are not isolated concerns. These are representative of system issues underpinning the sector at large.

A systems-informed analysis does not simply criticise individual providers but interrogates how regulatory settings, funding mechanisms, workforce conditions, and market structures interact to produce current patterns of care. It asks: what and who does the system currently reward, and what or who is neglected? Further, what are the system goals and how are other system elements aligned with them? Crucially for ECE, a systems-informed analysis should ask: what kind of system design do we need to ensure that the best interests of young children—rather than commercial returns—are the driving force of early education provision?

Understanding and applying Systems Theory in this way helps shift the focus. It shifts the focus from symptoms to structures, and from individual cases with isolated interventions to meaningful systemic change.

No more reactive policy

How can we do this? We need more reporting transparency. And we need more largescale data and more quality research. That’s to better understand the scope and complexity of issues we are now facing. We must give voice to our educators — they are the ones on the ground working in this system day-by-day. We need to understand the complexity of the issues our educators are experiencing. And finally, we need to take a big picture perspective to understand our ECE system in its entirety.

No more reactive policy. No more band aid solutions, and knee-jerk reactions. A coordinated and cohesive approach to system design is needed. We need that to safeguard children’s wellbeing at a minimum — and beyond that, to support every young child to flourish and thrive.

Erin is a Lecturer in Early Childhood Education at the University of Sydney, and an early childhood teacher, with a Bachelor of Education and over 15 years working with children from birth to five years of age.

Rachel is Professor of Social Impact at the University of Technology Sydney and an internationally recognised expert in education. She has a long track record of diverse social science research looking at education, work, health, management, leadership, and broader human development.

Evidence is important, but what is the problem?

July 11, 2025Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO)AARE blog, AERO, Brad Fuller, James Humberstone, Rachael Dwyer, University of Sydney, University of the Sunshine Coast

Following on from our previous piece, we explore the necessity for genuine evidence-based education practice to guide teachers’ work.

What is evidence-based practice in education, really?

By the early 2000s, the medical model had evolved from Sackett’s original concept. New frameworks appeared integrating the patient’s values, preferences, and circumstances and the clinical context, with research evidence and practitioner expertise. Through this evolution, evidence-based practice became an individualised process of decision-making. It relied on professional reflection, situational awareness, and mutual understanding between doctor and patient.

It was never designed as a universal prescription, but as a guide for action within the complexities of human care.

Evidence-based practice in education didn’t emerge through a tradition of reflective professional judgement, as it did in medicine. Instead, it was imported through policy mechanisms, often driven by governments seeking scalable solutions to perceived educational problems.

In Australia, these “solutions” are provided by the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO). Agencies such as the EPPI-Centre (UK), the EdCan Network (Canada), and the Institute of Education Sciences (USA) serve similar purposes. They promote models of evidence use that emphasise generalisability and scalability at the expense of teacher expertise and local context.

Teachers are not invited to interpret evidence, only to receive it

In these systems, evidence-based practice becomes something done to teachers, not by them.

The clinician making a judgement for and with a patient is replaced by a teacher required to implement a set of strategies proven “to work” in controlled trial. That’s regardless of the student, classroom, or community. The message is clear: teachers are not invited to interpret evidence, only to receive it.

This pattern of decontextualised, policy-driven “evidence use” is not new. Others have rightly criticised it. In recent posts, authors such as Dean Ashenden, Nicole Brunker, and Nicole Mockler highlight the narrowing of what counts as “evidence,” the sidelining of teacher expertise, and the ideological function of “what works” discourse in Australian education reform. These are essential critiques.

Our aim here is to build on and deepen that conversation. We do so by revisiting the roots of evidence-based practice in its original domain: medicine. By returning to David Sackett’s foundational model, we show just how far education has drifted from evidence-based practice as a reflective, individualised and context-sensitive endeavour.

A fundamental departure

We argue that what AERO presents as evidence-based practice is not simply reductive. By removing these crucial elements, it represents a fundamental departure from the professional logic that EBP was built on.

This departure matters. It shapes how teachers are trained, how their practice is judged, and how their professional expertise is valued, or ignored. It also has deep implications for student learning, particularly in a system where teachers are not supported to think critically with and about evidence. They are instead expected to implement pre-approved solutions that exclude uncertainty, discourage inquiry. These ‘solutions’ bypass the relational dynamics that are central to teaching. This is in a system that is supposed to teach critical and creative thinking in every Australian child.

We write to reclaim it as a tradition of reflective practice, professional judgement, and pedagogical care.

No problem solving for teachers or students

In the foreword to the fourth edition of their book Evidence-based Practice Across the Health Professions published just last year, Australian EBP experts Hoffman, Bennett, and Del Mar cover the current understanding of the medical model of EBP (MEBP). They define it as a “problem based approach where research evidence is used to assist in clinical decision making”.

This remains consistent with what David Sackett understood when he first articulated evidence-based medicine. Professionals make decisions in uncertain, complex, and relational contexts. They draw on research, experience, and the needs of those they serve.

We argue that this conception of EBP is most suitable for translation into education because both teaching and learning are, at their core, problem-solving practices. Instead we are left with an education ideology that removes the practice-as/is-problem-solving and learning-as/is-problem-solving foundation of Sackett’s concept of evidence-based practice for teachers and students.

A core competency

We call for problem solving to be a core competency for teachers, just as it is for practitioners in MEBP where practice is underpinned by what Hoffman et al call an “attitude of inquiry”. Unlike AERO’s “this works – do it” mentality, the process of MEBP acknowledges that “uncertainty is an inherent part of health care”, and begins with the practitioner identifying a problem in their own context and going to the evidence base with a question. We advocate for an evidence-based practice in education that embraces the uncertainty of our profession. We propose an adaptation of MEBP’s “The five A’s” as a frame for guiding educators to engage in evidence-based practice:

The Five A’s of EBP for Education

Ask a question – convert your information needs into an answerable pedagogical question
Access the information – find the best evidence to answer your pedagogical question
Appraise the articles found – critically appraise the evidence for its validity (risk of bias), impact and applicability in your unique context, with your specific students
Apply the information – integrate the evidence with classroom expertise; the students’ values, preferences and circumstances; and information from your classroom context.
Audit – evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency with which steps 1–4 were carried out, and think about ways to improve your performance of them next time.

Embracing a framework like the Five A’s for EBP in education would not be an easy change.

Time, resources and professional learning

Teachers would need time, resources and professional learning to develop the research literacy to engage in this kind of professional practice. However, it holds the potential for educators to take back the ownership of their profession, reclaiming/reframing teaching as a tradition of reflective practice, professional judgement, and pedagogical care.

If teachers, researchers and educational leaders are respected as the professionals they are, then there is potential to correct the current trajectory of evidence-based practice in education and its undermining of the very heart of effective teaching, empowering teachers as problem-finding, problem-solving, critically reflective teacher-learners committed to individual student needs, rather than as mere implementers of mandates.

Brad Fuller is an educator and researcher with over 35 years of experience in music education and curriculum innovation. He is associate lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney. James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney. He specialises in teaching music pedagogies, technology in music education, and musical creativities. Rachael Dwyer is a lecturer in curriculum and pedagogy at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Her scholarship is focused on creating social change, through decolonizing, arts-based approaches to teaching, advocacy and research.

Image of two heads with various small objects to show communication representing discussions with AERO

AERO says educators can trust its evidence. Can they really?

July 10, 2025Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO)AARE blog, AERO, Brad Fuller, James Humberstone, Rachael Dwyer, University of Sydney, University of the Sunshine Coast

The first in a two-part series on AERO and evidence. Tomorrow: Evidence is important, but what is the problem?

The Federal Government has now ordered an independent performance evaluation of AERO, conducted by KPMG. You can provide feedback here.

There have been debates about whether teaching is an “evidence-based” profession, or whether it should be.

The discourse around evidence-based teaching and learning has been dominated by “effectiveness research”. That’s driven by a neoliberal obsession with metrics, the most convenient metrics being standardised test scores like NAPLAN and PISA.

Declining scores on these tests is most often attributed to poor teaching. Specifically, the blame is attributed to the quality of teachers graduating from university initial teacher education (ITE) programs. Part of the Australian Government’s solution to this perceived problem is to increase oversight of ITE programs in universities. This has led to the introduction of highly prescriptive “Core Content” for ITE programs from the Strong Beginnings report, and further surveillance of ITE through a new Quality Assurance Board (to regulate the regulators).

The Core Content mandates teaching strategies and approaches that are “shown by research” or “proven” to be effective.

The evidence for these assertions comes from the Australian Educational Research Organisation (AERO). AERO was established as part of the Gonski 2.0 reforms, as a national evidence body. It was intended to “conduct research and share knowledge to promote better educational outcomes for Australian children and young people”. AERO publishes a range of resources, including “Explainers”, intended to provide advice to teachers about evidence-based practice. But is this evidence-based practice, or a new avenue for governments to further intrude into the classroom?

Should teachers trust AERO to interpret the evidence for them?

As Nicole Mockler and Meghan Stacey explain, it’s hard to argue against ‘evidence-based practice’ but the devil is in the detail. Evidence-based practice as it is understood in medicine, is a far cry from evidence-based practice as it’s currently understood in teaching. Evidence-based medicine was conceived as a reflective practice grounded in individual judgement by the medical practitioner, considering systematic research evidence, their own expertise and the patient’s needs. It emerged from the medical professions in the 1990s and was pioneered by David Sackett, It has since evolved beyond Sackett’s original vision, extended to balance the patient’s values and preferences, the clinical context, the practitioner’s expertise and research evidence.

Evidence-based teaching has been driven by policy mechanisms, promoting models of evidence use that emphasise generalisability and scalability. It reduces teaching to a set of formulaic strategies. The evidence and resources presented by AERO appear to position teachers as incapable of understanding and interpreting research, then making professional judgments based on their students and the school content. AEROpresents the research as if it was black and white– “proven”, incontestable facts. The evidence is presented as an instruction manual, with no space for professional judgments or critique.

Education researchers know this is very rarely the case. Let’s look atAERO’s explainer on Managing cognitive load. Drawing primarily on Sweller’s cognitive load theory, the explainer proposes that explicit or direct instruction helps to avoid students experiencing cognitive overload. This can occur when too much new information is presented at once. It can also occur when previously taught knowledge is not regularly revisited.

Arguments and counter-arguments

There is significant evidence to support the educational psychology of cognitive load theory. But there are also counter-arguments. Sweller argues that unguided learning “does not work”. But others provide evidence that problem-based and inquiry learning can be effective, and that contextual factors must inform pedagogical choices. When we consider these perspectives on the research, we begin to see the selective approach to research on which AERO has built its “evidence base”.

This is not just a concern for practising teachers. It is a concern for the entire educational enterprise. Critical thinking is identified as a crucial skill for the 21st Century. It drives innovation and preparing students for a world we can’t yet imagine.

The Australian Government promotes the importance of critical thinking. But at the same time, AERO recommends strengthening evidence-based practice through highly prescriptive approaches to teaching. It mirrors the same top-down, narrow interpretation of ‘what works’ that characterises AERO’s materials.

The government asks no questions of AERO’s research

The Australian government appears to be not engaging in any critical thinking, taking AERO’s research explainers at their word. An example of this is the full acceptance of the Strong Beginnings recommendations, including the swift implementation of the Core Content for ITE programs.

Content from the Managing cognitive load explainer dominates Core Content areas 1 and 2 from Strong Beginnings, with all ITE programs expected to teach their students:

1.2.3 The most effective teaching practices to reduce cognitive overload, including explicit instruction, scaffolding, and clearly structured content that connects new information to prior learning.

2.2.3 The importance of presenting all information required to complete these chunked tasks in one place and at one time, excluding information not directly related to the task, to reduce cognitive overload.

2.2.6 Why independent problem-solving is only effective once a student approaches proficiency (i.e. after ample opportunities to practise progressively challenging tasks) and why independent problem-solving should not represent a large proportion of teaching and learning time.

(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2023)

There is no nuance in this policy language. It tells teachers what is effective and what is not. AERO presented the research as black and white, and now the policy does the same.

Evidenced based teaching is only as good as the evidence itself

Under the present evidence-based regime in education we have lost any consensus on what evidence-based practice even means. Some suggest that evidence-based practice is oppressive, that it is in opposition to good education, leading to pre-determining of teaching practices with no regard for local context.

Others suggest that the problem is narrow definitions of what counts as evidence, and that evidence-informed policy and practice are vital to the profession. The version of evidence-based practice promoted by AERO reduces evidence to prescription, positioning teachers as technicians. This is not what David Sackett envisaged when he first articulated evidence-based medicine: that professionals make decisions in uncertain, complex, and relational contexts by drawing on research,experience, and the needs of those they serve.

Can teachers trust AERO’s evidence?

So, can teachers trust AERO’s evidence? Maybe they could if trust meant more than compliance. But perhaps the bigger question is why doesn’t AERO trust teachers? What if AERO treated teachers not as technicians, but as thinking professionals in relationship with their students. Maybe AERO needs an “explainer”?

Rachael Dwyer is a lecturer in curriculum and pedagogy at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Her scholarship is focused on creating social change, through decolonizing, arts-based approaches to teaching, advocacy and research. James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney. He specialises in teaching music pedagogies, technology in music education, and musical creativities. Brad Fuller is an educator and researcher with over 35 years of experience in music education and curriculum innovation. He is associate lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney.

Researchers, teachers aren’t reading your stuff now. Here’s what they think would help

May 15, 2025professional development of teachers, talking about teaching, Teachers' workAARE blog, Bronwyn Reid O'Connor, Ellen Larsen, Steven Kolber, Teachers' voices, University of Southern Queensland (USQ), University of Sydney, Victoria University

The Australian Association of Research in Education (AARE) Teachers’ Work and Lives Special Interest Group launched the second in a Teachers’ Voice Panel Series last year. It provides time and space for educational researchers to listen to teachers about what research matters to them. In this follow-up panel, six experienced teachers from government and independent schools across Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales came together online to share their ideas about research and their work. What emerged amid this discussion was a range of useful suggestions for researchers looking to engage with teachers and schools through their work.

Academics are constantly being asked to engage with the public – but that can be tough. It’s a tough struggle trying to publish in top-tier journals and balance that with external engagement, translational research, engaging with real people at the coal face.

We work on disseminating research through various avenues with the hopes that it reaches teachers – and contributes to change. But does it?

The road blocks between teachers and research

When speaking to the panel about how teachers connected with research, many roadblocks for teachers were raised. It almost goes without saying that many of the constraints and challenges faced by teachers in accessing current research are not within the locus of control for researchers, with time being the core challenge.

Amelia Nemeth notes that “I feel a challenge for classroom teachers is the time constraints and the demands of teaching leave little room for them to authentically engage with research.”

But beyond that, the panel raised that a major challenge they faced was when publications were not available as open-access.

Where Jessica Prouten emphasised that “Everything is hidden behind paywalls”.

Whilst Tom Mahoney also noted that “More research going open-access is really helping, so more of that!”

It was oftentimes presentations that made engaging with research overly onerous for teachers, with books providing a form of practical synthesis proposed as a clear alternative to the traditional research journal article.

To speak to teachers, synthesise the research

For Rebecca Russell-Saunders,“To sit down and read through a 23-page journal article, which is full of academic speak, can be daunting, I’d prefer to read a book written by someone whose synthesised the research applied it in the classroom – providing me with scenarios of how teachers have done it, so I can imagine how it would work in my setting.”

For Colin Jaques, “A book that summarises all of the research is quite useful – so I can bring those ‘nuggets of gold’ into faculty meetings, and we can say ‘what do we want to try’, and then come back and evaluate if that worked or not.”

Some of the teacher panel proposed that curation and synthesis were important, Cassandra Pride said that “It can be hard to know where to begin, so having a curation point would be lovely”

Amelia Nemeth finds that “[Research tends to be] …too theoretical and too disconnected from their practice… some dot-point summaries that they can put straight into their practice.”

Experienced teachers from the panel called for the importance of research that has clearly articulated implications for practice, and tangible directions for action.

Methodologies that respect teachers’ time

The panel also shared their insights regarding ideal methodologies and approaches that consider and value teachers time. With a focus on minimising surveys, many preferred interviews where possible.

Tom Mahoney believes, “You can never go wrong with just an interview, I’m more than happy to ramble on, and I think most teachers are like that…. Your talking is your thinking. But, I don’t like surveys, you know, Likert scales – I find them really limited and restrictive.”

Cassandra Pride concurred, “I agree, all of the interview research I’ve taken part in has helped me build connections. It’s exciting to speak beyond our own setting and system!”

Rebecca Russell-Saunders preference is for “Maybe a short screening survey at the start, 7 minutes would be ideal.”

A counterpoint was provided for the utility and convenience of completing surveys online. Such as Jessica Prouten, who said that, “I prefer surveys because I can do it at home, in the jammies, watching MasterChef, compared to an interview where I have to be dressed nicely and peopling with people, rather than being able to do things at a time convenient for me.”

As researchers know, the rise of altmetrics and a focus on impact has not always brought about the changes we may have hoped for; the consequence being that it can be challenging for teachers to know which researchers to turn to. A positive example of making research visible was provided as an exemplar that other researchers might explore.

Tom Mahoney suggests that, “Stephanie Westcott and her work on misogyny in schools has been really powerful, just knowing that’s ‘her thing’ – meant that when I had someone contact me about their experiences of this I could reach out and point them in the right direction.”

The ongoing challenge of journals being behind paywalls was one thing, but considerations of how researchers and Universities might do the work of sharing findings, perhaps at the organisational level was also highlighted. The use of social media for this purpose was proposed.

Jessica Prouten notes that, “It would be great if Universities could be doing more about journal accessibility, I loved the #edureading online reading group making journal articles accessible to us, but I’ve emailed academics to access articles, and no one ever responded to me – and that’s kind of sad.” Continuing she notes that, “Guidance from Universities around how they [teachers] could start journal article reading groups within their own schools… Is there a space for sharing research with teachers via social media?”

Small steps

A major trend within the discussion was around small steps that researchers could do to make their research work more classroom and school-friendly.

Cassandra Pride wondered that, “Wouldn’t it be great if education research required a precise, a one-pager, of how this research relates to school – to avoid reinterpretation, an infographic or something similar would be amazing.”

Amelia Nemeth suggests that, “Practical summaries, people who want a quick read to put things into practice”.

Tom Mahoney continues that, “Twitter was a really useful thing, a really good place to see that research distilled into short snippets – I made many connections there. LinkedIn is a great place to reach out to researchers.”

To conclude, the teachers on the panel, not surprisingly, enjoyed the opportunity to join in the discussion and being put into the empowering position of being asked for their input.

Rebecca Russell-Saunders concluded that, “Teachers feel that researchers aren’t asking us, what would you like?”

How might the work of researchers be shifted to meet the teaching profession and schools where they are?

Just because you went to school doesn’t make you an expert on teaching

April 28, 2025boosting the teacher workforce, election prioritiesAARE blog, AARE election priorities, Nicole Mockler, teacher workforce, University of Sydney

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

If we’re genuine about addressing the teacher shortage and retaining the excellent teachers we already have in the system – not just recruiting more of the ‘best and brightest’ so we can burn them out – we could start by making the decision to stop infantilizing teachers.

For example, it’s common to read about “teachers being left to fend for themselves” in the classroom because of a lack of standardised curriculum resources that would do the thinking for them and take the load off. It’s a line that dates to a Grattan Institute report from 2022 that’s been taken up with great enthusiasm by some sections of the media (like here and here, and here for the glorious metaphor of “rudderless teachers”, this time attributed to the current Minister himself).

Part of the problem is the disconnect between what the work of the teacher is and what most of the population thinks the work of the teacher is.

We might think that because we went to school, and/or have kids who go to school, that we know what teachers do: the job is to show up at the front of the class from 9am to 3pm every day for a scant 40 weeks a year. Right?

Wrong. That would work if teaching was a performance (although even then they’d presumably need to do a little rehearsal?). But it’s not.

Conditions for learning

The actual job of the teacher is to create the conditions for learning. For everyone in the class – that’s usually 25 to 30 individuals at a time. To do that effectively, you need to know every one of those students. You need to understand what they bring into the classroom. What they already know. What they’re passionate about. What their strengths are. What they need to work on. Whether they had breakfast this morning. And so on. This is not a newfangled idea: it’s based on decades of research across both psychology and sociology of education.

And that’s what’s wrong with the relentless messaging about how great it would be if all teachers used standardised lesson plans and resources – the so-called “low variance” approach. I’d argue that it’s very last century, but the truth is that the idea of a one-size-fits-all school experience doesn’t just belong in the 20^thcentury, it belongs in the dark ages. Anyone who thinks we can standardise our way to an education system that will prepare our young people for the turbulent times they’re going to navigate, hasn’t been paying attention for at least 20 years.

Kids need access to powerful knowledge

And the same is true for the baseless idea that knowledge somehow gets magically transmitted from the brain of the teacher to the brains of students. Kids need access to powerful knowledge, there’s no doubt about that. And they need teachers who can help them learn it, provide feedback along the way when they get things wrong, and drive them to expand and improve in their learning. But we won’t get there with scripted or standardised lessons that spray the classroom with ‘knowledge’ (let’s call it ‘content’) in the hope that some of it will stick.

It’s time to recognise that teachers have specialised, professional knowledge that goes beyond what you might have imagined while sitting in a classroom for 13 years. Just like doctors, physiotherapists, lawyers and IT specialists have specialised knowledge that is, effectively, what we pay them for. The difference is that we expect (and hope) that our brain surgeon knows more about brain surgery than we do, while we seem quite comfortable subjecting teachers’ knowledge to some kind of pub test.

Teachers are human

The more we assume that teachers need think tanks or economists or politicians or anyone else to ‘help them fend’, the more it feeds the teacher shortage. Teachers are human. If they don’t feel valued, and are constantly exposed to arguments about their work mounted by people with strong views but next to no actual knowledge of their work, it’s hard to keep showing up.

Respect matters. Valuing what teachers actually know and do, and recognising that it’s complex and that laypeople (and that includes politicians) might not necessarily understand its intricacies would be a pathway to reinstating trust in the teaching profession. And that might just be the perfect place to start in supporting a vital profession in crisis.

Nicole Mockler is professor of education at the Sydney School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney and Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Education, University of Oxford. Her research focuses on education policy, teachers’ work, and education and the media.

Reflective supervision: woman staring at reflective glass with postit notes.

Reflective supervision: one way to address the crisis at the top

April 24, 2025teacher retentionAARE blog, Charles Sturt University, Geoff Broughton, Mary Ann Hunter, Michael Anderson, reflective supervision, teacher retention, University of Sydney, University of Tasmania

Australia’s education system is facing a significant crisis, with school principals experiencing unprecedented levels of stress and adversity.

A recent report by the Australian Catholic University by Paul Kidson and colleagues is alarming. It shows physical violence against school leaders has surged by over 80 per cent since 2011. Threats of violence are at an all-time high. The mental health of our principals is deteriorating, with severe anxiety and depression rates significantly higher than those in the general population. Over half of the surveyed principals are contemplating leaving their positions, a potential exodus that will destabilise our schools.

What can we do?

Kidson and colleagues’ report highlights reflective or professional supervision as an underutilised strategy to address the principal crisis.

Distinct from performance evaluations or compliance-focussed managerial oversight, reflective supervision provides a structured, confidential space for school leaders to reflect on their practice, discuss challenges, and support the development of critical reflection.

It takes the form of regular, planned, and intentional meetings with a trained supervisor who is external to a leader’s workplace. This is not managerial supervision whereby conversation is motivated by role expectations and performance. Rather, supervision expands this lens to reconnect leaders with their professional purpose and values. Distinct from coaching, supervision is not primarily about improving skills and strategies, but cultivating grit and grace for ethical engagement with complex challenges. In other professions such as social work, psychology and allied health, reflective supervision is an effective means of developing clarity, confidence, and agency, particularly in roles that require a high degree of autonomy and leadership. Supervision therefore seeks to interrupt practice, rather than merely report on or judge it.

So what might a typical supervision session look like?

Each can look very different, according to the focus topic or inquiry that the leader (supervisee) may bring, and the approach that the supervisor may take to support the leader to explore it. This can be through creative use of images or metaphors, for example, and through noticing and questioning to help the leader widen their own lens of understanding and explore the ‘thinking behind their thinking’. By building a partnership of trust, safety and confidentiality, the supervisor facilitates a collaborative enquiry to explore the impacts of the leaders’ thinking, ethics and professional practice on those around them – including on colleagues, students, the broader school community and even the profession itself. Supervision is both supportive and challenging, affirming and question-making. In all ways, the supervisee is upheld as the expert of their own practice and an agent of their own decision making.

While each session may be different, there are typical features of a session that help scaffold and guide inquiry. Contracting begins a session so both parties are aware of the limits of confidentiality and the parameters for engagement. Focusing is a process to locate the nub of inquiry that then enables exploration and expansion of it. Sometimes this is referred to as ‘making the familiar strange’, disentangling a knot, or exploring the tributaries of a bigger river or flow of concerns. Sessions culminate in consolidating insights, and bridging back to how they will influence or impact everyday practice. Supervision can also occur in small groups, following a similar process of enquiry.

Not a silver bullet

Supervision is not a silver bullet, but 2024 evaluation undertaken by Paul Kidson for the University of Sydney found that with school principals, reflective supervision appeared to be more effective than mentoring or coaching and supported senior educational leaders in ways their current systems could or would not.

Drawing on the voices of principals, the evaluation demonstrated that the benefits of supervision are multifaceted. It offers a supportive environment where school leaders can process the many demands of their role, reducing feelings of isolation and stress. The participants saw that supervision could ultimately build stronger schools by mitigating burnout and increasing job satisfaction. The respondents believed that, by addressing issues proactively in supervision, it would contribute to higher retention rates among school leaders, as it has done in other sectors. A number of the participants in the reflective supervision program at The University of Sydney indicated that before the course they were contemplating life beyond school leadership, including strong intentions to leave education altogether as a result of workload, mental health issues and burnt out. Yet, for these participants, reflective supervision provided the encouragement and processes to reconsider their professional direction and continue as school leaders.

A cultural shift

Implementing reflective supervision requires a cultural shift within the education system. While school social workers, chaplains and psychologists access supervision as a matter of course nothing similar exists for principals. Yet, they experience similarly complex emotional and psychological demands.

Valuing principals’ wellbeing, professional growth and fidelity to their profession is integral to every school’s success. Providing resources for trained supervisors and integrating regular supervision sessions into the leaders’ professional learning is already proving its worth as a sustainable support that combats leadership loneliness and promotes mental, psychological, social and even spiritual wellness.

Addressing the current crisis in school leadership as the ACU report suggests will take many forms. It’s not surprising that reflective supervision featured prominently at the roundtable between the federal education minister and principals among the many challenges of modern school leadership. By investing in the well-being and professional respect and maturity of our leaders through this approach, we not only support them as individuals but strengthen the entire educational ecosystem, ensuring better outcomes for students, our schools, and ultimately our communities.

Mary Ann Hunter is associate professor in education at the University of Tasmania. Geoff Broughton is associate professor in Christian theology at Charles Sturt University.. Michael Anderson is professor and co-director of the CREATE Centre at The University of Sydney.

Decisions, decisions: Why do teachers feel time poor?

February 10, 2025talking about teachers, Teachers' workAARE blog, Anna Hogan, Greg Thompson, Meghan Stacey, Nicole Mockler, QUT, Sue Creagh, teacher workload, University of Sydney, UNSW

The first school term for 2025 is ramping up, and many teachers are returning to complex and tiring – if extremely important and fulfilling work. A key part of this work is making decisions: from long-term, considered decisions, to those which occur ‘in the moment’, consciously or subconsciously during classroom interactions. Indeed, there’s a common understanding that teachers make a lot of decisions. In the 1960s, sociologist Philip W. Jackson estimated the number to be about 1500 in a single day.

But while Jackson was interested in documenting ‘life in classrooms’, he was not really focused on the question of how decision making is experienced by teachers, or how it might be a factor in understanding concerning recent reports of work overload and intensification. Indeed, most scholarly work on teacher decision making so far has positioned it as part of what makes teaching effective; as something that changes over time with growth in professional knowledge; and/or as a resource – a source of professional control and autonomy.

In our research, we sought to ask the question of whether decision making might be part of the subjective intensity of teaching work. To do this we used an app developed for the Teachers and Time Poverty project. The app asked teachers to report on the number of decisions made within a time-sampled 30-minute period, and the stakes and time pressure associated with these decisions. In a recent chapter for a book two of us edited on time poverty, we present these decision making data from a trial of the app with 138 teachers reporting on 280 30-minute timeslots.

How many decisions?

In our trial, most teacher respondents (189/68%) estimated that they had made 30 decisions or less within their assigned 30-minute period (with the most common response being 11-20 decisions, and the average being 21-30). This is somewhat low, if we consider Jackson’s estimation of 1500 a day, which would equate to at least 130 decisions in half an hour. This result may be because decisions that become automatic are harder to recall, and/or because stressful or complex situations may make it harder to recall the process of making a decision. Importantly, Jackson was observing teachers – not doing the teaching himself and trying to self-report his decision making.

How pressured were these decisions?

Questions about pressure to make decisions quickly, or make high stakes decisions, were measured using a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 was ‘not at all’ and 7 was ‘to a great extent’. In terms of pressure to make decisions quickly, most responses ranged from 4-7 out of 7. Leaders reported more pressure (83% in the range of 4-7) than teachers (71%).

In terms of pressure to make high-stakes decisions, responses were more evenly distributed. Leaders tended to report greater pressure here (67% in the range of 4-7), compared to teachers (48%).

These findings around decision making pressure suggest that it’s not just the number of decisions, but the nature of those decisions that contribute to the teachers’ and school leaders’ experiences of working time.

Do teachers have enough time?

A further question we consider in our chapter is whether participants felt they had enough time to complete everything they intended to do within the 30 minutes they were reporting upon. Responses from over half the group (58%) tended toward ‘not at all’, with 19% selecting 3, 23% selecting 2, and 16% selecting 1 out of 7.

Is this unusual?

We also asked teachers how typical their day was overall. The majority of responses confirmed that theirs had been more or less a typical day, with a median response of 5 on the 7-point scale. This indicates that not having enough time to do all they need to do, and needing to make decisions quickly – some of which are high-stakes – is a commonplace experience in teaching. Teachers also reported undertaking a very wide range of activities during their allocated 30-minute time slots, including face-to-face teaching, preparation and administration, student wellbeing responsibilities, and other activities outside the classroom – and often more than one of these categories within the same 30-minute block. We wonder if this ‘typical’ kind of variability, including as it relates to decision making, may be a further dimension of the intensity of teachers’ working time.

Decision making and time poverty

Our work sees decision making not in terms of how teaching works and how to make it work better, but instead, as part of how it is experienced: a window into understanding the texture of teachers’ time at work. The data we gathered indicate a clear sense of participants feeling rushed and not having ‘enough’ time, with decision making experienced as consistently, if not evenly pressurised (both in time and stakes), and conducted across a wide range of activities.

Our analysis therefore contributes to our broader argument in the Teachers and Time Poverty project that time poverty for teachers is not simply about a lack of available ‘clock time’, but rather, how the nature of the time teachers currently spend at work is constituted, and the considerable variability of this.

Complexity

This highlights the complexity of what teachers do: the wide range of tasks they undertake, the kinds of decision making these demand, and the ‘typical’ unevenness and lack of predictability that require teachers to make these decisions. We think this might be a key part of what makes teaching such an exhausting (albeit worthwhile and fulfilling) job. It also points to why ‘quick fixes’ like a little less playground duty, or less after school meetings cannot, on their own, solve the enduring problem of teacher time poverty.

Meghan Stacey is associate professor and ARC DECRA Fellow in the UNSW School of Education, where she researches the critical policy sociology of teachers’ work. Sue Creagh has most recently worked as a senior research fellow at QUT. Sue’s research interests are in education policy, national testing, and English as an Additional Language/TESOL. Nicole Mockler is professor of education at the University of Sydney. Her research interests are in education policy and politics, professional learning and curriculum and pedagogy. Anna Hogan is associate professor and ARC DECRA research fellow in the School of Teacher Education & Leadership at QUT. Anna’s research interests are in education policy and practice, and in particular the privatisation and commercialisation of schooling. Greg Thompson is professor in the School of Teacher Education & Leadership at QUT. His research focuses on the philosophy of education and educational theory.

A skull and a trumpet representing the death of music and drama

NESA: If we let the rot continue, the ultimate losers will be our students

December 8, 2024drama, Music education, NSW Education Standards AuthorityAARE blog, drama education, Michael Anderson, music education, University of Sydney

Under NESA’s draft drama syllabus, which created outrage among drama teachers, students and parents this week, HSC group drama performance had been downgraded (NESA backflipped on this), options for students cut and the link between Year 7-10 drama and the HSC had been broken, and written exams increased.

NESA failed to listen to academics and teachers on the drama syllabus and now NESA is failing to listen on the music syllabus. I know this because I was an advisor on drama.

Is NESA broken?

They need to start again. Release a new draft for drama, provide adequate consultation, and this time, listen to voices outside their organisation. Same for music. If we let the rot in NESA continue, the ultimate losers will be our students who will be denied learning that is world leading. Surely that is more important than NESA’s pride.

Syllabus revisions for drama and music are normally sedate affairs. Academics, teachers and NESA officers work collaboratively to generate a syllabus that will create rigorous and engaging learning for students.

Not in 2024. Last week more than 350 drama teachers met at the Seymour Centre to ask Paul Martin CEO of NESA about the complete inadequacy of this draft drama syllabus.

On the same day, an emergency session of an upper house committee was convened to find out what the fuss is all about. To be fair, NESA had a perfectly good draft drama syllabus that had been constructed in the way we expect but sometime between that draft and its subsequent release the syllabus became unworkable and unteachable.

Heather Mitchell and Tim Minchin speak out

Renowned performing artists Heather Mitchell and Tim Minchin raised their voices in protest, the shift was so breathaking. Education academics and former supervisors of marking wrote letters to Prue Car asking for a restart. Most have been unanswered.

Even with all this pressure, NESA is stonewalling attempts to admit it has not got this right. They insist their process is unimpeachable.

Music also has major concerns. Calls for a new start on the HSC music syllabus have also been ignored. To me, this looks like bureaucratic arrogance.

To whom does the syllabus belong?

In the face of overwhelming advice from teachers, students, academics and the community, NESA are insisting that it is right. CEO of NESA Paul Martin went as far as to say to a room full of teachers: “It’s not your syllabus.”

Of course he is right. This syllabus does not belong to teachers and academics.

It also does not belong to NESA.

It belongs to our young people who have the right to a world-class, engaging, rigorous and transformative syllabus.

What NESA has produced so far is not a shadow of that in either music or drama.

My fear is that a narrow ideologically driven approach to learning and assessment has taken hold that does not understand nor provides space for the richness creative arts learning offers our young people.

NESA can fix this. They need to start again.

Professor Michael Anderson is Co-Director of the CREATE Centre and Professor of Creativity and Arts Education in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work at The University of Sydney.

Could these be our future teachers, one connection at a time?

November 22, 2024teacher recruitmentAARE blog, Alison Grove O’Grady, CREATE Centre, Kate Smyth, teacher recruitment, Thomas De Angelis, University of Sydney

Why did over 100 high school students apply to the Future Teachers’ Club (FTC)? The answer lies in the connections they’ve experienced with their own teachers.

What is FTC? The Future Teachers Club is a school-based initiative run by teachers for public secondary students interested in pursuing a career in teaching and engages its participants in behind-the-scenes activities to understand the scope and depth of the teaching profession.lThe Future Teachers Club (FTC) has been running at Macquarie Fields High School for over a decade under the guidance of visionary senior HSIE teacher Perry Celestino, and dedicated MFHS former school principal Jan Dolstra.

The conference, held at the Chau Chak Wing Museum on Wednesday this week, saw students come from western and south western Sydney, Dubbo, Armidale and Mussellbrook in regional New South Wales to explore teaching as a profession.

Where does teaching lead?

They wanted to see where teaching would lead them. They’d already been inspired by their own teachers and now they had the opportunity to explore how teaching creates opportunities to form relationships and make a difference. It offered these prospective teachers a unique combination of inspiration, storytelling, and practical insights into the joys and challenges of a teaching career.

The conference, a collaboration between the University of Sydney’s Sydney School of Education and Social Work and the NSW Department of Education, created a space to delve into the essence of teaching – a profession built on connection, relationships, and the profound impact of shared stories.

From the opening remarks by Professor Mark Scott, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Sydney, to the workshops facilitated by expert educators, the event celebrated the intrinsic rewards of teaching. Professor Scott also acknowledged the daunting prospect of a four-year education degree but reframed it as an opportunity to develop new skills and forge a meaningful career.

The power of storytelling

At the heart of the conference was the power of storytelling. Dr Alison Grove O’Grady, Senior Lecturer and Chair of Initial Teacher Education, delivered a session on the classroom as a place for joy, connection, and shared talents. Drawing on her own experiences, Alison shared photos to illustrate her journey in teaching: one of which was from 1992, depicting her first Year 11 Drama class at Whalan High School in Mount Druitt.

The photo from Whalan High was a testament to the enduring relationships that define a teaching career. Alison spoke about the five students in the photo, recounting how their stories had shaped her life in education. In a touching moment, the niece of one of those students from the photo, who was present at The Future Teachers Conference approached Alison after the session to say, “That’s my aunt in that photo.” This deeply personal connection underscored the conference’s key theme: teaching is built on relationships. See photo. Yes permission given

Situated within the Chau Chak Wing Museum, the conference embraced the interdisciplinary nature of education, grounding the day in Aboriginal and First Nations histories and storytelling. The museum’s rich collection of Aboriginal artefacts and materials provided a meaningful context for exploring teaching as a way to preserve and share knowledge.

Forging connections

Speakers like Zoe Cassim, Program Manager for the Indigenous Literacy Foundation, and Kylie Captain, President of the Aboriginal Studies Association, highlighted the importance of Aboriginal ways of knowing and storytelling in education. Their contributions reinforced the idea that teaching is about forging connections—not only between teacher and student but also between past, present, and future.

For experienced educators like Alison Grove O’Grady and Dr Catherine Smyth, Program Director for the Bachelor of Education (Primary), the conference was a chance to give back to a profession that has brought them long and joyful careers. “As we move toward the end of our careers, it’s important to share our stories and the enormous joys and experiences we’ve had,” Alison reflected.

What the students said

One student remarked in a post-conference survey:

“Teaching creates new possibilities, the career benefits your skills and allows you to make valuable connections to school and staff.”

Another shared:

“I used to believe teaching was draining, but today I learnt that the reward was more important.”

These reflections highlight a key takeaway from the event: teaching is not just a career but a calling. It’s about sharing stories, building relationships, and creating a sense of community – values that resonated deeply with attendees.

The conference wasn’t just about the attendees’ futures – it was about shaping the future of education itself. Murat Dizdar, Secretary of the NSW Department of Education, told students, “Teaching is the profession that creates all other professions,” and even shared his personal email, inviting them to contact him directly for job opportunities. His gesture underscored the importance of nurturing a new generation of teachers.

Students left the conference inspired, with one remarking: “This gave me an insight into behind-the-scenes of teaching.”

One message was clear

By the end of the day, one message was clear: education is a cornerstone of community and connection. As Alison summed up, “Teaching is about relationships, sharing our own stories, and creating moments.” Held in the inspiring setting of the Chau Chak Wing Museum, surrounded by ancestors and grounded in First Nations histories, the conference embodied this vision of teaching as a dynamic and deeply rewarding profession.

For those who attended, the Future Teachers Conference was an invitation to step into a career that shapes lives and creates possibilities, one relationship at a time.

Left to right: Alison Grove O’Grady is Chair of Initial Teacher Education and Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney, School of Education and Social Work. Her research focuses on pedagogies of empathy, as performed and action-oriented methods, to develop teachers’ understanding of self, multiple identities and voices.

Kate Smyth is Program Director (B.Ed. Primary) in the School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. Kate works extensively with initial teachers, alumni and other educators in supporting primary teacher professional learning collaborations in rural, remote and urban schools in NSW, and she has been co-leader of professional learning experiences in Vietnam and Indonesia.

Thomas De Angelis is the Research Associate – Strategic Projects at the CREATE Centre, a research centre based at the University of Sydney that investigates the impact of the arts on education, health and wellbeing. Thomas also works as a lecturer and tutor and is currently completing a PhD and Academic Fellowship with the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.