Part one of a two-part series in response to Stuart Robert's comments last week. Tomorrow: Anna Sullivan on how the minister's comments affects teacher retention.

Minister Robert’s comments last week at an Association of an Independent Schools event which claimed public schools are held back by “dud teachers” do more to expose his own bias and failings than it does to reflect on the teaching profession.

The minister has the wrong target. Teachers are not to blame for the sorry state of Australian education. The problem lies with system failings that Minister Robert has responsibility for.

I feel sorely tempted to analyse the bias, political motivations, and the unfounded and illogical reasoning demonstrated by the minister, and apparently his advisors and speechwriters. However, I will stick to my strengths and instead look at evidence and some killer facts. 

There is no data to support the assertion that government schools have weaker teachers. Repeated, and recent, research suggests that government schools performance is  similar to non-government schools in terms of lifting student learning outcomes. Furthermore, there is no data on teacher ability that supports the Ministers’ assertion. The national and embryonic and incomplete Australian Teacher Workforce Data does not include measures of literacy and numeracy, there are no published analyses of LANITE tests. There is just one recent report on adult literacy and numeracy levels among Australian teachers - it doesn’t compare sectors, but I shall explain its significant findings later in point 3.  Sectoral (gov/non-gov) comparisons on teacher workforce have not been done and would be an unhelpful, and potentially inflammatory, distraction from the central problem of inequality in Australian schooling.  There is, however, plenty of evidence, and some killer facts, that show the real system-level challenges in Australian education, and the solutions they require.  

These are the system problems to which Mr Robert needs to attend rather than sling mud at teachers and inflame sectoral infighting :

1. Australia has a problem with educational equity in funding, resourcing and curriculum which, alongside school choice policies, has led to increasing school segregation. Both the OECD and UNICEF have identified this as a key weakness in Australian schooling. School segregation has left many government schools carrying increasing concentrations of disadvantaged students. Within the current context of teacher shortages, iniquitous school funding, increasing workloads and difficult work conditions, many schools find it difficult to staff their classrooms. 

In a survey of 38 wealthy nations Australia ranked 30th on educational inequity and was in the bottom third of nations on each of the schooling stages - preschool, primary and secondary. 

Figure 1: Rankings of equality across three stages of education. From 2018 UNICEF report An Unfair Start: Inequality in Children’s Education in Rich Countries

Solutions:  Lift early childhood participation and duration to ameliorate inequity.  Enact the Gonski school funding reforms, fund all schools to their required School Resource Standard. Address structural problems in schooling, e.g. develop sector blind school obligations, operations and accountabilities for all schools receiving government funding. Provide reforms for curriculum equity, including through online/remote provisions. Monitor and report all educational data for social equity groups. 

2. Australia’s national educational goals have been grossly neglected. There is little, or no, alignment between the goals education ministers put their signatures to in the Mparntwe statement and what is measured in schools and reported in our National Reporting on Schooling. 

This is a gaping hole in educational policy and accountability, matching goals with monitoring and strategy development is foundational to System Accountability 101.  While governments have been busy over the last decade developing frameworks for teacher and school accountability, much needed system and ministerial accountability have been ignored. It is a simple fact that there is currently no monitoring of national goals in students’ confidence, creativity, orientation to lifelong learning, or preparation to be ‘active and informed’ citizens (with the exception of a small amount of sample data available on citizenship education, showing  disappointing results).

What is even more surprising is that equity has not been adequately monitored. Although excellence and equity are generic aspirations, and can be assessed against any data indicator, there is very little analysis and reporting against the equity goal in national reporting documents.

The Measurement Framework for Australian Schooling (MFAS) identifies equity as a key goal and challenge, and suggests that all educational data will be disaggregated and examined in relation to a series of identified equity groups:  “…with a focus on: Indigenous status, sex, language background, geographic location, socioeconomic background, disability.”

However MFAS qualifies this, saying:

“With the exception of retention to Year 12 by Indigenous students, which relates to COAG targets for Closing the Gap, equity measures are not separately listed in the Schedule of Key Performance Measures but are derived, for reporting purposes, by disaggregating the measures for participation, achievement and attainment where it is possible and appropriate to do so. Measures are disaggregated as outlined in the SCSEEC Data Standards Manual.”

Which is to say, there is no follow through on accountability systems for these goals. 

If we examine the pursuit of the educational equity goals in the annual National Report on Schooling, produced by ACARA, we see glaring omissions. The report does acknowledge some equity groupings and, like the MFAS, suggests there will be analysis but, again, only  “where it is possible and appropriate to do so”: 

In the most recent 2019 annual report measures, analysis and reporting are not linked to national goals. Equity is mentioned just six times in the 138 page document, mostly just in preamble. There is no comprehensive analysis against excellence, equity or any other national goal. There is no reporting against disability, LBOTE, SES; and extremely limited reporting on Indigenous students and geolocation. There is more frequent reporting by gender. Further reference to equity for social equity groups directs interested readers to the ACARA data portal to conduct their own analyses of equity! Is that reasonable, diligent attention for our foremost national goal for education? 

Solutions: Include comprehensive analysis of social equity groups within the annual report on schooling. Strategise to address trends, through funding, resourcing and teacher workforce strategy. Develop measures/indicators for all Australian education goals. Commission research to explore key practices in progressing toward educational goals. 

3. Australian teacher workforce management makes us an International outlier. 

The 2018 OECD report  Effective Teacher Policies makes it clear that current teacher workforce management (methinks a lack of management) is directly impacting upon schooling outcomes - excellence and equity. This study used OECD, PIACC adult literacy and numeracy data to explore the strategic placement of teachers. Among wealthy nations, Australia sits apart as we send our most experienced, literate and numerate teachers to our most advantaged schools. Other country systems deliberately strategised to send their best and brightest teachers to the most disadvantaged schools. This has been an imperative for educational equity, effectiveness and economic efficiency, understood and implemented for many decades, but sadly neglected in Australia.

Teacher reports from the same survey also make it clear that disadvantaged schools have worse resources compared to advantaged schools when it comes to:

• Experience and seniority levels of teachers
• Proportions of teachers who are trained or certified in all subjects they teach 
• Proportion of science teachers with temporary teaching contracts

As the majority of disadvantaged schools are within the government sector, this data  suggests that suitable allocation of teachers to disadvantaged government schools is lacking. It does not provide any basis for comparison of government and non-government school teachers. What is more, this represents a structural policy issue, and a ministerial responsibility requiring urgent attention, not 

Solution: Australia needs a national teacher recruitment, retention and allocation policy to address this problem, not to mention teacher shortages and workload issues.  Without one, we are the international outlier here too. Unfortunately, the recent Commonwealth review, failed to present a cohesive strategic framework oriented around key values and principals. A national strategy needs to highlight these (e.g. due respect and recognition of teachers, pursuit of educational goals, equity etc) and lay out aims for how teachers are recruited, trained and distributed to schools. The strategy would also need more effective monitoring, data, research and reporting on  the teacher workforce (building on the ATWD). 

How to break the cycle of neglect?

With better data, reporting, transparency and system-level accountability frameworks, future education Ministers can be less ignorant and more informed, as they comment on issues relating to teachers and how we can all work together to strengthen school education.

The current failings in our education system are now clear, and reflect many years of neglect, particularly in relation to teachers and equity. We urgently need national, politically neutral and collective attention to address the system generated problems currently being faced by schools, teachers, students and parents. With ignorance and misinformation at the helm, I wonder if, as with aged care and disability services, we will need a Royal Commission into education in order to make that happen. It certainly looks like we are heading there. 

Rachel Wilson is associate professor at The Sydney School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She has expertise in educational assessment, research methods and programme evaluation, with broad interests across educational evidence, policy and practice. She is interested in system-level reform and has been involved in designing, implementing and researching many university and school education reforms. Rachel is on Twitter @RachelWilson100

This article was originally published on EduResearch Matters. Read the original article.

Part two of a two-part series in response to Stuart Robert’s comments last week. Yesterday: Rachel Wilson on Dud teachers or a dud minister? Here are the facts

Australia is facing a teacher shortage crisis. Schools are struggling to find enough teachers to teach their students. The situation is extremely dire. For example, modelling indicates that Australia is going to be short of more than 8,000 primary school teachers by 2025. Too few people are entering the profession and, worryingly, far too many teachers are leaving early especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Low wages, overwork, difficult student behaviour, lack of support and stress are some of the reasons teachers leave the profession or have periods of sick leave.

The Acting Minister for Education and Youth, Hon Stuart Robert MP gave a very irresponsible speech last week, which will do more harm to the teacher supply crisis. Robert claimed that he wants to ‘attract the very best candidates to the teaching profession and to ensure they are well prepared when they first enter the classroom.’ However, he argued that Australia needs to ‘knock down the bottom 10 per cent of dud teachers’.

He went on to explain:

… you can hire and fire your own teachers, I'm talking to the heads of your schools here. And there's no way they will accept a dud teacher in their school like, not for a second. So for your school, you just don’t have them, you don't have bottom 10 per cent of teachers dragging the chain.

This is a clear and calculated political statement about the quality of teachers and how they should be treated.

Robert argued, ‘The point being, if we can take the bottom 10 per cent quality of teachers and turn them into the average quality within the teaching profession, we will arrest the decline.’

Such political statements frame teachers as a “problem” and are aimed at creating derision and uncertainty in the broader public. Robert is doing this well.

Robert clearly calls into question:

·         ‘what students are taught’

·         ‘how students are taught’

·         ‘the environment in which students are taught’

·         ‘the content of ITE courses’

·         the levels of ‘disruptive behaviour in classrooms’

He also calls into question other aspects of education in Australia, including:

·         the quality of public schooling,

·         the quality of teaching,

·         a preference for certain types of education research,

·         public school lack values,

·         parents’ preferences for schools

·         students’ levels of achievement

·         the safety of schools

Roberts’ comments suggest that he considers himself as an appropriate expert who can make informed decisions about education. For example he states, ‘my assessment is that the revisions are travelling very very well.’

Unfortunately, public statements by powerful people, such as Robert, politicise teachers and their work. This politicisation influences who is attracted into the teaching profession and how they do their work, particularly those teachers at the beginning of their careers.

Robert’s political views expressed in this speech focus on individual and deficit perspectives of teachers. He raises unfounded concerns about many aspects of education in Australia.

Regular attacks on student performance, teacher quality, teacher education, academic standards, teaching methods, and school discipline occur in many countries around the world.

These views are intentional and aimed at undermining perceptions of the success of education systems to bring about more traditional approaches to schooling. That is, politicians like Robert are pursuing an ideological agenda which undermines the professionalism of educators and ignores the bodies of research that should be informing policy and practice.

Such negative views of education continually undermine the profession and create tensions and doubt in society. In this environment it is very easy to slide into disparaging and demeaning public discourses about the declining quality of teachers and the profession more generally.

In a context of uncertainty related to the quality of education in Australia, there is likely to be a range of political remedies to “fix” the problem of incompetent and ill-prepared teachers by reasserting control over teachers’ work and focusing on traditional teaching methods such as scripted curriculum, testing, rewards and sanctions, behaviour management, and explicit instruction.

Australians should be very concerned because Robert’s comments contribute to further de-professionalisation of teachers’ work and a lack of trust in the work teachers do. They are likely to deter people from considering teaching as a career option and could lead to further problems to the overall supply of teachers.

Finally, we should not have ministers of education making politically motivated statements like this:

‘So why don't we face the brutal reality that we have got to arrest the quality of our teaching, if we are going to make a difference when it comes to it and stop pussyfooting around the fact that the problem is the protection of teachers that don't want to be there; that aren't up to the right standard; that are graduating from university or have been for the last 10 years and they can't read and write. They can't pass the LANTITE test.’

They are damaging Australian education.

Professor Anna Sullivan is the Director of Centre for Research in Educational and Social Inclusion at the University of South Australia. One of her areas of research focuses on early career teachers’ work. In particular, she has sought to understand the ways in which teachers’ work can be restructured to enable their success and how early career teachers can be supported to stay in the profession.

This article was originally published on EduResearch Matters. Read the original article.

5 min read

In what, internationally, is becoming a sure sign of an impending general election, here we have yet another review of initial teacher education in Australia – a ‘thousand and second damnation’, perhaps, in the words of one of the review panel members. Delivered to former minister Alan Tudge in October but released last Thursday with the minister still missing in action because of an inquiry into a relationship he had with a staffer, the report of the Quality Initial Teacher Education (QITE) review is a curious mix of serious reflection and scatter gun politics, with a deeply colonial flavour.

The Good:

The report powerfully underscores the national responsibility to address Australia’s First Nations communities through multiple means in educational contexts, including better support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to enter the profession and better preparation for all teachers to teach in a culturally responsive and sustaining way. Combined with a strong emphasis on ensuring better representation of Australia’s diverse and multicultural communities in the teaching profession, the report’s authors should be congratulated for signalling the powerful part that teacher education can play in fostering a fairer and more equitable society.

Also worthy of note is the call for the government to raise the status of the teaching profession in Australia and, more indirectly, cautioning policy makers about using schools in politically motivated culture wars if they wish to improve both recruitment and retention in the teaching profession.

The Bad:

The report is sometimes characterised by a naïve understanding of what counts as ‘evidence’. For example, the injunction to use more randomised control trials in teacher education programs, apparently recommending universities deny some prospective teachers in control groups the beneficial treatments, at the same time as urging universities to reduce the length of programs to get teachers into classrooms quicker. The rhetoric around the ‘gold standard’ of RCTs is telling; it’s most often wheeled out when people have not engaged with the multiple forms of evidence that can give policy-makers good reasons why a reform is worth scaling. Good policy requires good judgement  about what research can and can’t tell you rather than slavish adherence to methodological dogma.

Further contradictions are apparent in the report’s approach to innovation. The system-wide encouragement of innovation is critically important factor in developing the quality of ITE – to be welcomed - but panel’s recommendation of greater political control of the content of ITE curriculums through proposals for ‘quality’ measures tied to commonwealth funding will lead to an overwhelming focus on compliance. The evidence internationally is that the tighter you control provision through monitoring and audit cultures, the less creativity and innovation you get. A different kind of culture is needed, one that expects universities to be innovative with ITE.

Similarly, a welcome emphasis on high expectations for ITE programs is contradicted by the proposal to shorten them to a year for those with ‘good subject knowledge’, for example. This recommendation both contradicts the evidence about teachers’ subject knowledge (where a teacher’s advanced qualifications in mathematics, for example, can lead to poorer outcomes in mathematics for primary age students) and runs against international trends where the period of initial preparation is being extended. The issue for career-changers is how they support themselves during a career transition not the length of the program alone and there are already examples of accelerated programs where student teachers are paid for work in schools alongside learning to teach. Reducing the length of programs in itself will just make it more difficult for the panel’s aims to be realised.

The Ugly:

The references to the ‘United Kingdom’ Core Content Framework are just embarrassingly ignorant and unworthy of inclusion in a serious document. There is no UK framework. The UK is made up of four nations and the panel is referring to the highly controversial framework for England that is widely regarded as deeply ideological and fundamentally amateurish (it was shown to be copied and pasted from another document in a political rush to get education policies out prior to the 2019 British general election). Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have far different frameworks for ITE – with the Welsh policies being especially worth reading for their requirement for schools and universities to work together in consortia. This part of the report is pure colonial political theatre.

Which brings me to perhaps the single greatest weakness. Overall, the report continues to perpetuate the myth that the quality of an ITE program is overwhelmingly down to what universities teach on campus. This report, like so many others, betrays a profound lack of attention to the importance of what happens in schools. Schools placements – especially longer ones – present powerful, practical learning opportunities for student teachers. Yet Australian schools, especially private ones, do not all have a history of offering placement opportunities. Any serious national effort to improve ITE would also address how schools can better exert their powerful influence on what and how new teachers learn to teach in collaboration with universities. The best policy frameworks internationally (e.g. Norway’s, the US federal ‘teacher residency’ initiative, and yes, Wales) do just that.

Having a whack at universities just prior to a general election is an expedient way of provoking a ‘debate’ about the state of a country’s education system without attacking teachers directly. Despite a strong start – such as emphasising the part that teacher education can play in fostering a fairer and more equitable future for Australia - the QITE report soon descends into yet another rather predictable damnation. 

Viv Ellis is Dean of the Faculty of Education at Monash University. His latest book (with Lauren Gatti and Warwick Mansell), The New Political Economy of Teacher Education: The Enterprise Narrative and the Shadow State, will be published by Policy Press in November 2022.

This article was originally published on EduResearch Matters. Read the original article.

5 min read

Hugh Gundlach, The University of Melbourne and Gavin R. Slemp, The University of Melbourne

Money might at first attract us to a profession, but does it keep us in it? The report of the Quality Initial Teacher Education Review, released in recent days, found teachers in Australia reach the top pay scale after about ten years. This is well below the average for advanced economies. A survey for the review suggested more high-achieving graduates would enter teaching if the top salary increased by $30,000.

But is salary enough to motivate people to stick with a long-term career in teaching?

We have spent the past four years working on a meta-analysis of research on this question. We analysed over 70 factors in global data on teacher retention and turnover over the past 40 years, involving more than 3 million participants in total. We also surveyed more than 1,000 Australian current and former teachers about their career decisions.

The most-researched factors in teacher retention and turnover are job satisfaction, school leadership and teacher salary. The survey shows major attractions to teaching include:

• a passion for learning

• working with young people

• contributing to society

• job security

• salary.

Are these factors the same as the factors that keep teachers in the profession?

We statistically combined the results of 186 similar but independent studies to obtain an overall estimate of an association between a factor and teachers’ decision to stay or leave the profession. This approach corrects for bias that may be present in individual studies to reveal the true strength of relationships.

What keeps teachers in the profession?

Our meta-analysis showed salary has the third-strongest association with teacher retention. It came behind teachers’ self-reported commitment to the profession and self-reported job satisfaction.

In our survey, salary ranked fourth for reasons teachers stay in the profession. The first three reasons were positive student relationships, positive collegiate relationships and secure employment.

One teacher with 12 years’ experience reflected:

“The most significant factor I have perceived in keeping teachers in our profession is their personal passion. Teachers are not materially motivated, there are no big dollars here. Good schools then necessarily rely on passion to outweigh these priorities in retaining and developing excellent teachers.”

Another teacher with 18 years’ experience said:

“The thing that has kept me in teaching is the students I teach, the relationships I have with them, and the sense that I am contributing to making their lives better in some way.”

Any why do others leave teaching?

When surveyed about why teachers leave, salary did not feature in the top ten reasons. A loss of passion for teaching, stress and burnout, struggling to cope with their roles and a lack of connection with students were the most common reasons.

For those who leave, salary has a relatively weak association. It seems important for stayers, but won’t stop leavers from leaving.

As one participant in the survey said:

“I think the pressure, stress and workload, paired with the salary teachers receive, ultimately means you must have a real passion for the job to survive. As soon as that passion fades, it can become incredibly arduous, you can feel unappreciated, and you can become resentful. It is important to continually assess why you are teaching and what makes you love the job, as without that love for the work you do, the profession can be a nightmare.”

Showing teachers they are valued does matter

A $30,000 pay rise for every teacher at the top experience level would of course be popular. It would show their experience is valued. One teacher with ten years’ experience said:

“I find it really frustrating that I work hard but am not financially rewarded. I look at my friends earning twice the amount and experiencing more recognition for jobs that are merely about economic benefit. I know my job is important but I would like more prestige in society’s eyes.”

Raising the top salary for teachers, even if only a fraction of recruits last long enough to receive it, may help to raise the status in society and social approval among friends and family of teaching. These two factors had strong associations with intentions to stay in the profession.

The prime target of raising the top salary would be teachers under 40 years old. A recently published report on the characteristics of teachers in the workforce found teachers under 40 were much less likely (about 20%) to indicate an intention to stay in the profession until retirement.

One teacher commented:

“The public service get much more money, for much less work and far fewer qualifications. The value and worth of the teaching profession do not reflect well.”

Our study data suggest teachers leave for a combination of greater pay and benefits and professional growth. One teacher told us:

“I value opportunities and recognition. When you hear about friends who work for exciting firms that offer opportunities, perks and flexibility, the school environment can feel rigid.”

The structure of tenure-based salary advancement is potentially a limiting factor compared to other industries. A 49-year-old teacher with five years’ experience said:

“I had to take a huge pay cut to move from the corporate sector into education. I never expected to be confronted with such an inequitable system. Pay based on years of experience rather than merit and ability has been very demotivating.”

Staffing schools is a delicate balancing act

Retention in itself should not be a school goal at the expense of student learning or rejuvenation of teaching staff through new hires. Indeed, teachers are not exactly a homogeneous workforce.

Unfair as it may be, should bonuses be offered to retain teachers in hard-to-staff subjects and locations only?

A $30,000 increase in the salary ceiling may retain long-serving staff, but what effect would $30,000 spent to reduce workload and improve resources and working conditions for all teachers have on retention?

Ensuring Australia has a sufficient supply of qualified and motivated teachers requires a two-pronged approach: attraction and retention.

Hugh Gundlach, Lecturer in Education, The University of Melbourne and Gavin R. Slemp, Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Over the past 20 years, there have been monumental shifts in the way we work with young people with disability and their families.

Back in the 1990s, when a child was diagnosed with autism it followed a sad formula:

Diagnosis > label > hand a tissue to sad and confused parents.

After that, there was little support.

And if your child had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, it looked like this:

Disruptive child > query bad parenting > medication.

And again, little support after that.

In 2006, there was a shift, with children and families able to receive mental health care under Medicare’s Better Access plans. By 2013, the National Disability Insurance Scheme – the biggest social reform since Medicare – was rolled out.

In 2020 came Disability Inclusion by the Victorian Department of Education and Training (DET), with a new strengths-based process, tiered funding model, and investment in support roles and capacity building across Victorian schools.

In 2021, the Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031 was released, outlining a vision for a more inclusive and accessible society.

The community voice is getting louder in demanding us to change the way we conduct research and engage with children and their families.

Inclusion is positive mental health

The good news is that barriers for children with disability are slowly coming down. Increasingly, they can participate and feel a sense of belonging in those places that are a part of the natural landscape of childhood such as kindergarten, school, sports and social clubs.

But this isn’t happening fast enough.

Even before the pandemic, autistic children were missing out on vital social experiences – one in five children we surveyed had never been invited to ‘spend time’ with other children, and half had never stayed overnight for a sleepover, camp or holiday.

Now, amid the pandemic, we’ve seen an enormous spike in mental health problems. Parents have realised for the first time their child might have autism, ADHD, or a learning disorder.

If living ‘an ordinary life’ before the pandemic was an everyday struggle for children with disability and their families, the journey back to living an ordinary life is going to be even more challenging now.

Anxiety disorders are by far the most prevalent presentation for autistic children or those with ADHD. Psychological therapy can treat anxiety disorders, and the earlier we treat anxiety, the better the long-term prognosis and ability of the child to participate in everyday life.

Alongside anxiety, the pandemic has put a spotlight on childhood sleep disorders. In the largest-to-date NHMRC-funded treatment study of sleep disorders in children on the autism spectrum, we reported a brief, cost-effective behavioural intervention (two 50-minute face-to-face sessions, plus follow-up phone call) can treat not only sleep problems, but also has the potential to reduce childhood anxiety.

Completed on the eve of the pandemic and recently accepted for publication in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the inclusion of a telehealth component in this treatment study was to foreshadow what would become a ubiquitous platform for delivering healthcare in 2020 and beyond.

We want all children to not just survive, but to thrive.

Services are difficult to access

However, despite major disability, Medicare, NDIS, and educational reforms, it’s almost impossible to access psychological services due to the pandemic.

In response to the increased mental health needs brought about by COVID-19, the federal government announced in late 2021 that psychological telehealth services subsidised by Medicare would be made available for the next four years to increase accessibility to mental health services at this critical time.

Mental health delivered via telehealth was a ‘lifesaver’ for the many children and adolescents who experienced moderate-to-severe mental illness during the Melbourne lockdowns. With digital healthcare platforms here to stay, we need to urgently harness the potential of this pandemic silver lining by working with the underserved disability community to answer some simple but powerful questions:

What works? For whom? Why? And where do we go from here?

This is a moment in time when the African proverb “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together” has never been more apt.

Community-based interventions show great promise

One of the greatest failings of both research and disability health services is that we commonly work in silos. Medical models of disability are pitched against social models of disability.

This has resulted in a piecemeal approach of bringing the best of research evidence from psychology, education and neurobiology to promote good mental health outcomes in all children.

The relatively new field of community-based intervention can change this. This approach brings together medical and social models of disability support, and opens possibilities for treating mental health issues in children.

These types of interventions show great promise, because at its heart it’s all about creating multiple social conditions with multiple ways and pathways for children to engage, and improve both mental and physical developmental outcomes.

It’s exactly these kinds of programs that the Krongold Clinic will champion in the coming years.

Why we all need to flip our thinking

Education is not only a fundamental human right, it also acts to amplify other rights – this is called a multiplier effect.

Inclusive education must go beyond simply including children with disability in a space, as there’s often an invisible door that stops a true sense of belonging.

This ‘exclusion within inclusion’ also has negative psychological and biological impacts, poor sleep, reduced or excessive eating or exercise.

Good mental health outcomes come from taking a strengths-based approach, and holding the dignity of a child in one hand and their developmental and psychological needs in the other. Coupled with a truly inclusive approach to education, it has a powerful effect on our communities.

It means we can move away from a ‘fix the child’ approach to demanding change from society, to ‘fix’ the environments where we all live, plan and learn.

Put simply, we don’t try to change the child to fit the world; rather, change the world to help all children thrive.

The role of researchers

After all these years, why are we still not satisfied with inclusion, and what needs to change? How do we rise to the challenges?

As researchers, we can change the conversations we have with the communities we serve. We must move from:

“Would you like to collaborate so that we bring our expertise together to create solutions and interventions for you.”

To:

“Hello. Inclusion, education and mental health is a basic human right. Can we join you to wrap our research engine and expertise around your great thinking, programs and initiatives to ensure better outcomes for all children?”

As the old saying goes, if we want a different outcome, we need a different approach. And as researchers, it’s time to change the way we engage with our communities.

Note: This article uses the term “autistic child” or “child on the autism spectrum”, in line with the preferences of many members of the autism and autistic community in Australia.

(See “It defines who I am” or “It’s something I have”: What language do [autistic] Australian adults [on the autism spectrum] prefer?, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1-11.)

This article was first published on Monash Lens. Read the original article

Australia will need an estimated 400 to 750 new schools to accommodate 650,000 additional students within the next decade, costing state governments up to A$11 billion, according to the Grattan Institute.

In Victoria, as many as 200 new schools are projected to be needed in this timeframe.

These new schools present an exciting opportunity to deliver buildings that support the way education happens in the 21st century, and better serve the broader community.

What shapes a school building?

Commissioned by the Victorian Department of Education and Training, our research identifies four key drivers for improved school design and innovation:

• new curricula – including new teaching and learning practices and activities
• inclusive education design – including the need to better cater to students with special educational needs
• schools as community hubs – so that school sites can provide additional programs and services, beyond ‘just’ teaching school students
• outdoor learning spaces – for education, recreation and whole-of-community wellbeing

These findings have influenced recent updates to government policy, including the new Victorian School Building Authority’s School Facility Area Schedules and Design Guide.

They will shape the next generation of schools by informing school communities and architects about what they should build, based on a given school’s enrolment, to ensure the buildings are fit-for-purpose in the long-term. They will also help ensure equitable provision of facilities across the state.

The new area schedules introduce a three-layer approach to defining school facility designs, based on Area Groups, Space Types and Suggested Sub-spaces, moving away from the historic practice of specifying ‘room types’.

Instead, the focus is on the types of learning environments that are needed for effective, contemporary teaching and learning.

This includes the varied ‘learning settings’ that can support personalised learning experiences for all students, like hands-on maker spaces, collaborative group settings and quiet retreat spaces for consultation, ideation and reflection.

At the same time, the schedules provide a balance between meeting the functional requirements of school facilities and enabling opportunities for continued design innovation.

New curricula

Historically, curriculum changes have been a significant driver of school design as new curricula often require tailored spaces, for example for science, drama, music, or design technologies.

This is also increasingly the case for primary schools - particularly for teaching science and technology.

With rapid technological and societal changes, learning spaces also have to support new forms of activity. Largely gone are the days of classrooms filled with rows of tables and chairs.

Buildings and learning spaces now need to accommodate a wide range of learning experiences to engage students in meaningful and memorable activities across the day. Things like developing digital media to demonstrate understandings of English texts, creating theatrical performances with peers to convey learning about sustainability, or constructing and programming robots to undertake certain tasks as a means of developing problem-solving skills.

Inclusive education design

With approximately four per cent of all students requiring special education, we also need new approaches for supporting them.

The widespread adoption of Universal Design principles (designing products or environments so they can be used by as many people as possible) is an important step.

Offering inclusive facilities on school sites that feature accessible movement pathways, hearing augmentation systems, as well as consultation or therapy rooms, should make schools more welcoming and accessible to students with reduced mobility, hearing, sight or other physical or cognitive impairments.

Sensory gardens, respite spaces, kitchens, laundries, and a range of other spaces, along with well-structured support practices, can aid inclusive education.

To encourage this for existing schools, the Victorian State Government has introduced the A$30 million Inclusive Schools Fund for projects that boost inclusion.

Schools as community hubs

Historically, school facilities have been some of the most under-utilised public assets in Australia, with most used sparingly outside of school hours.

But the idea of schools as community hubs has received increased attention in recent years, especially in Australia’s rapidly growing urban and regional centres.

School sites are no longer envisaged as 9:00am to 3:30pm settings for the exclusive purpose of schooling, but as valuable assets that also support a range of programs and services for individuals, families and community groups.

Gymnasiums, outdoor courts, playing fields, swimming pools, early learning centres, maternal and child health facilities, and a range of other spaces can also be used as community resources; leading to improved school-community relations, and expanding the range of services delivered from school sites to local communities.

Outdoor learning spaces

The types of outdoor spaces needed in schools tend to vary depending on cultural context and location, with different climate zones, topography, suburban and rural settings all influencing what takes place outside.

Regardless, outdoor spaces are increasingly being recognised as important for learning, as well as socialising, exercising and relaxing.

School communities are being encouraged to use their sites as ‘learning landscapes’, blurring the historic cultural distinctions of ‘indoor learning spaces’ and ‘outdoor play spaces’.

These more naturalistic environments can also contribute to wellbeing.

The more inclusive and better attuned our school buildings and learning spaces are to current educational practices, the more opportunities there will be for all students to learn and thrive.

We look forward to seeing the influence of new government policy on school design in Victoria. We expect the School Facility Area Schedules and Design Guide to help shape the design of hundreds of entirely new schools, as well as thousands of school facility upgrades in the next decade.

With Victoria already recognised internationally as a school system that is leading design innovation, we also expect recent policy changes and subsequent built outcomes to influence the design of schools throughout Australia and around the world.

The Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) is based at the University of Melbourne.

Banner image: Resource intensive spaces for science and technology at Camberwell High School, Hayball Architects. Picture: Dianna Snape

5 min read

The year ahead for Australian schools: escalating workloads, industrial action and COVID-19:

On New Years’ Eve in 2020, teachers around Australia looked forward to leaving behind a difficult year of lockdowns and remote teaching, and starting a new, and hopefully better year afresh. However, on New Years’ Eve in 2021, teachers seem to have found themselves back at square one. Here we are, approaching term one, and states and territories are not in agreement about who will go back and when.

So just what will 2022 bring for Australian educators? In this review, we report on emerging trends in school education across Australia’s states and territories, and the professional and industrial matters which we think may confront teachers in the year ahead. 

Teacher workload and work pressures: a crisis at tipping point?

Achieving positive schooling experiences and outcomes for students depends considerably on ensuring teachers are well-resourced and supported to complete their important work. But teachers’ work has grown enormously in size and become more complex in nature. 

In recent research, we synthesised large-scale surveys from over 48,000 teacher-participants to analyse teacher workload across five Australian states. The most prominent finding emerging from these surveys was the near-universal increase in teachers’ workload, perceived to be driven by the ‘heavy hand’ of compliance reporting and datafication. This has impacted teachers’ core work, with a corresponding reduced time to focus on matters more directly related to classroom teaching.

Teachers’ hours of work were found to have increased over the 5 years between 2013-2018 and were reported as being slightly higher in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. 

The complexity and demands of teachers’ work has also increased nation-wide. In New South Wales, approximately 95% of teacher-respondents reported that the complexity of their work had increased over the last five years and that the range of activities undertaken in their work had increased. In New South Wales and Western Australia, over 96% and nearly 90%, respectively, of respondents reported that the volume of collection, analysis and reporting of data had increased over the last five years. 

It is very common for teachers to work beyond in-school hours. Over 99% of teachers responding in Queensland indicated they used time outside their rostered hours to plan and prepare lessons. In Victoria, planning and preparation was undertaken by a large majority of respondents during evenings (93%) and weekends (83%). 

This increase in workload and intensification of work has occurred at a time of governments promoting devolutionary, market-inspired policy. Previously we have argued that policies which devolve increased decision-making power to schools have contributed to the intensification of teachers’ work, resembling a ‘tsunami’ of paperwork. 

However, there appears to be shifting ground around the future of devolutionary policy in schools. For instance, after a decade in operation, the NSW Government repealed Local Schools, Local Decisions and replaced it with the School Success Model after it became evident that there were no improved educational outcomes across the States’ education system from this devolutionary policy. 

But time will tell the impact of this new reform on teachers’ workload. Previously we have argued that a new policy which sits alongside the School Success Model – the Quality Time Action Plan – which intends to “simplify administrative practices in schools” and bring about greater shared responsibility and accountability perhaps won’t adequately address the workload concerns and administrative burden on teachers created by devolution, as our research has documented. 

Policy deliberations around school governance and devolution may signal a ‘back to the future’.  Governments have previously commented that schools have been given ‘too much’ decision-making power, however we argue that policy reform should focus on the ways in which governance and accountability mechanisms can support teachers to focus on their core work of teaching and learning. 

Union demands: the time to improve teacher salaries and conditions

Our research has also documented the campaigns being led by teacher unions across various states in protest against these workload pressures facing teachers, alongside calls for improved salaries and to address the worsening nation-wide teacher shortage. 

In December 2021, New South Wales public school teachers engaged in their first strike action in 10 years. This action came off the back of findings from an Independent Inquiry into the NSW Teaching Profession finding major concerns with teachers’ working hours and salaries. 

Elsewhere we have argued that this situation has been furnished by a challenging industrial environment, where salaries for teachers are locked in a 2.5% legislated wages cap and teachers are barred from arguing work value cases before the Commission to seek salary increases. 

Victoria’s teacher union is similarly planning strike action for 2022, which would also be the first strike action by Victorian teachers in a decade. Teachers are seeking increases to pay and superannuation in addition to reduced face-to-face teaching hours and classroom sizes. 

Meanwhile the Queensland Teachers’ Union has argued that more needs to be done to attract teachers to move to rural and remote areas of the state to adequately staff schools. It has even been reported that pre-service teachers are being granted waivers to teach in Queensland to address teacher workforce shortages. 

Industrial action, once a prominent strategy by teacher unions to pressure governments to improve teachers’ pay and conditions, over time has been constrained. However, the groundswell of concerns is prompting teacher unions to push back against worsening industrial and professional conditions of work. Indeed, union leaders have indicated that industrial action is likely to continue this year.

It’s time to listen to teachers 

It would appear that, currently, there is a disconnect between teacher workforces across Australia, and the policy-makers with power over their conditions. Teacher workload has escalated under systems of devolved governance, prompting a resurgence in industrial action from teacher unions.

Presently, many teachers are grappling with the idea of returning to face-to-face teaching in a few weeks. While some (although notably not teachers) may be arguing adamantly for this return, many of the teachers we know are hesitant about once again being asked to enter an unsafe work environment, where an existing teacher shortage will undoubtedly be compounded by the rampant spread of the omicron variant and associated sick leave fallout – an issue which is affecting the teaching profession nationally.

With no casuals to call upon, those who are able to teach will only have to take on more to share the load. Or instead we may find ourselves in the position of, for example, Kansas in the United States, where 18 year old high school graduates with a background check will be able to step into classrooms to work as a substitute teacher, to fill the gaps in staffing created by COVID-19. 

And so, as we look upon the dawn of another new, uncertain, and likely difficult year in schools, it is high time that we listen to and support our teachers – or soon there may no longer be any qualified professionals left in our schools to listen to.  

Meghan Stacey is a former high school English and drama teacher and current lecturer in the School of Education at UNSW Sydney. Meghan’s primary research interests sit at the intersection of sociological theory, policy sociology and the experiences of those subject to systems of education. Meghan’s PhD was conferred in April 2018. Meghan is on Twitter @meghanrstacey. Mihajla Gavin isa lecturer in the Business School at the University of Technology Sydney, and has worked as a senior officer in the public sector in Australia across various workplace relations advisory, policy and project roles.

Mihajla’s research is concerned with analysing the response of teacher unions to neoliberal education reform that has affected teachers’ conditions of work. Mihajla is on Twitter @Mihajla_Gavin

This article was originally published on EduResearch Matters. Read the original article.