Whole school priorities Archives - Page 4 of 9

Co-designed professional learning in the classroom: An opportunity for reflexive agency

Mary Ryan, et al share the outcomes and benefits of co-designed professional learning between education researchers and classroom teachers. . .

Professional Learning (PL) for teachers is an increasing area of interest due to the complex nature of our profession. Professional Learning is different to Professional Development (PD) as it can be tailored for individual teachers and include informal conversations, adaptive release learning that teachers do in their own time, and/or collaborative research in schools. PL provides opportunities to support teachers’ work, the learning needs of students, changing curricula and the demands of external assessment regimes in the contemporary landscape. The proliferation of PD for teachers, often denies the contextual experiences and expertise of teachers in favour of prescriptive top-down approaches. However, in our research alongside primary teachers, we used PL to show how co-design between teachers and researchers can have a real impact on teacher agency, practice and, consequently, student learning.

In a recent journal article, we reported on our research and PL program with primary teachers on the teaching of writing. Our research design included a discovery phase to find out what was happening for students and teachers regarding writing. Next, we engaged in a co-design process with teachers so they could better understand the conditions that were enabling or constraining writing and developed action plans to trial and evaluate. You may also be interested in our WORD project website. Our findings have broader implications for PL programs in schools.

Key ingredients of effective Professional Learning

Two major reviews of PL literature, including Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) in the US and Cordingley et al. (2015) in the UK, identified overlapping features of effective Professional Learning that have an impact on practice:

a focus on discipline-specific content integrated with both general and content area pedagogical knowledge in a cohesive program of PL;
active learning cycles for teachers to design, experiment, reflect and consolidate;
expert feedback and support in understanding the content, research evidence and evidence-based practices;
collaboration with other teachers to encourage a shared sense of purpose; and
sustained duration, typically a year or longer, to provide teachers sufficient time to learn, practice, implement, collect, and analyse evidence, and reflect on their practice.

Recent scholarship has highlighted the value of educational co-design and the way it shapes collaborative partnerships amongst teachers, learners, and researchers (Juuti et al., 2021).

The key theme across the literature is that effective PL offers complex and varied opportunities for collaboration and teacher input. Successful partnerships between teachers and researchers work to recognise the everyday demands teachers face and help them to co-design sustainable methodologies that work in the classroom.

How can a reflexivity process help us make the most of professional learning?

We found reflexivity was a great way to guide a more nuanced approach to Professional Learning to account for the way students and teachers make decisions about learning and teaching, especially in relation to writing. In addition, reflexivity theory (Archer, 2012) helps us to explain the dynamic contextual conditions that shape any learning and teaching event.

Reflexivity involves deliberating about possible courses of action, weighing up the contextual conditions to decide what might be feasible in this pedagogic situation and then choosing a way forward.

There are three distinct, yet related, conditions that shape, and are shaped by, our engagement in any situation (Archer, 2012). These conditions are Personal, Structural, and Cultural. Personal conditions relate to personal identity; Structural conditions are systems, practices, and resources in this context; and Cultural conditions relate to prevailing beliefs, and expectations in this context. These conditions apply both to teachers and students.

Table 1. Some conditions that influence or are influenced in the classroom

Personal conditions in teaching	Structural conditions in teaching	Cultural conditions in teaching
Identity as a teacher and learnerConfidence and efficacyBeliefs about teaching and learningKnowledge and skills	CurriculumPlanning documentsTimetableResourcesLanguageEveryday practicesStudents’ wellbeing and approach to learning	Importance of the subject areaHow the purpose of learning tasks is framedIdeologies of approaches to teaching e.g., explicit teaching, inquiry-based learning, and othersRelationships across school and community Expectations of parents, school system, government

In our project, we found that students (and teachers) approached decision-making around writing in quite different ways. Archer (2012) calls these modes of reflexivity, which may change in different learning contexts. These reflexive modes are communicative, autonomous, meta-reflexive, and fractured. The modes help us describe the different ways writers take on the task of writing:

Communicative reflexives – decisions need to be confirmed by others before they lead to action; for example, seeking constant affirmation from the teacher or peers about decisions or following the teacher’s ideas and/or structures without injecting personal style or voice.
Autonomous reflexives have a clear idea about their approach to a task and their decision-making leads to direct and quick action; for example, setting a plan that aligns with their favourite approach and not veering from the plan, so they get it finished.
Meta-reflexives tend to consider the broader context alongside their own goals and past experiences to make decisions that will lead to the best outcome for everyone; for example, meeting the expectations of the task and teacher while pursuing their own priorities at the same time.
Fractured reflexives find it difficult to make decisions or take purposeful action; for example, disaffected students who are paralysed by language requirements or the perceived enormity of the task.

Each of us can adopt these modes of decision-making at some point and in some contexts, but Archer argues that we generally have a dominant mode. Self-assessment and regulation can be much more effective if we understand our mode of reflexivity in any given context (Ryan et al., 2022). If teachers recognise their own and students’ modes of reflexivity, they can create pedagogic and classroom conditions that support students to enact effective learning decisions.

We found throughout the project, that three key terms were helpful for the teachers to consider in relation to the conditions that might enable or constrain their pedagogy: Know yourself, Know your students, Know your context. Below are some reflexive prompts you may like to consider:

Know yourself	What do I know about the topic?What do I struggle with or feel I lack knowledge of in relation to the topic?Do I engage in this topic as part of my life? If not, why not? What do I want/need to know?Where can I get support?
Know your students	Where are the children in my classroom at in relation to this topic?What kind of readers and writers are they?What kinds of texts are they interested in?How can I differentiate/assess where the kids are so I can meet them there and uplift them?How can I draw on the strengths of the children (their diverse knowledge of language other than English, cultural knowledge, experience of this subject matter at home etc) so that I can support their growth in this topic?
Know your context	What program (other than the mandated curriculum) is in use at my school in this subject area? Does it use a commercial program or rely on external resources?How deep/shallow is my knowledge of the curriculum and policy that influences my pedagogy in this area?How does my school culture support my knowledge and pedagogy?How valued is this topic in the school and community? Do they know enough about it?

Features of Co-designed Professional Learning

Because reflexivity foregrounds the impact of context on teaching (including the teacher’s own impact on that context), we adopted a co-design approach to the PL element of this study. Our co-design had four parts:

We collected and analysed classroom data to understand the nuances of the educational contexts.
We helped develop a plan with the participating teachers to support new enacted pedagogies.
We worked with the teachers to discuss these action plans and the teachers set their own goals.
We had sustained, contextualised discussion with teachers regarding how these actions were working in practice. We provided guidance to teachers in the form of classroom visits and debriefs.

We refer to this process as Co-Designed Professional Learning (CDPL). Our process was iterative: this means we introduced different types of analysis and action as the teachers worked with us to identify their enablers and constraints in teaching writing. For example, we studied the way time was spent during lessons when the teachers indicated their number one constraint was a lack of time to teach writing well. This process involved recording writing lessons and coding the time to understand the content of talk, how much time was spent on writing vs classroom management, and opportunities for students to discuss their ideas with teachers and peers through dialogic talk. The codes we developed were guided by evidence-based principles for writing pedagogy. This fine-grained analysis allowed us to offer targeted feedback to teachers and support the development of a suite of talk-prompts and time-saving strategies for their writing teaching.

Outcomes of co-designed professional learning

In the latter half of the CDPL project, we found that students spent more time writing and focused individually on the writing task. We found that teachers were more aware of time, allowing for more student-centred writing time and less interruptions from the teacher to clarify the task. We also found that the CDPL helped teachers to set goals. Students were observed to remain on task working independently on their writing and talking through their ideas while working. We witnessed higher student engagement in writing and more sophisticated texts. The teachers were more intentional in their pedagogy – using their data and action plans to focus on areas of improvement for themselves and for specific students. The amount of time spent on classroom management was also significantly reduced. Our focus in the project was not on NAPLAN results, but due to the co-design of effective writing pedagogy based on contextual classroom evidence (including teacher knowledge and confidence in teaching writing), student NAPLAN writing results improved significantly for classrooms in this study.

This CDPL was beneficial for teachers in multiple ways.

They were able to make sense of complex (personal, structural, cultural) conditions of their classrooms.
They received in-time guidance about how to account for these dynamic conditions in their teaching.
They exercised agency through their action plans, pedagogical design, and targeted support for students based on the data. This strengthened their confidence.
CDPL has the potential for sustainable change, as the teacher develops new, transferrable skills.

The CDPL was beneficial for students in their ability to:

Write for a clear audience and purpose.
Make choices related to their writing and write about topics they are interested in.
Spend more time on writing.
Receive quality feedback on their writing from teachers and peers.

These findings have important implications for teachers’ professional learning and the ways in which schools approach PL programs.

Where to get research support?

University researchers are generally keen to work with schools and teachers on programs of professional learning that may also include some research. Search for the expertise you need by looking at Education staff profiles on university websites or feel free to contact the NSW Council of Deans of Education as they would be happy to circulate your request to all NSW universities.

Archer, M. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cordingley, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., Saunders, L., & Coe, R. (2015). Developing great teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Teacher Development Trust. https://tdtrust.org/about/dgt/

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/effective-teacher-professional-development-report

Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Salonen, V., Salmela-Aro, K., Schneider, B., & Krajcik, J. (2021). A teacher-researcher partnership for professional learning: Co-designing project-based learning units to increase student engagement in science classes. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(6), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1872207

Ryan, M. Khosronejad, M., Barton, G., Myhill, D. & Kervin, L. (2022). Reflexive writing dialogues: Elementary students’ perceptions and performances as writers during classroom experiences. Assessing Writing, 51, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100592

Mary Ryan is Professor and Executive Dean of Education and Arts at Australian Catholic University. Her research is in the areas of writing pedagogy and assessment, teachers’ work in, and preparation for, diverse classrooms, reflexive learning and practice, and reflective writing. She was formerly a primary teacher and has an extensive record of professional learning for teachers. Her funded research projects are in the areas of classroom writing and preparing teachers to teach for diversity to break the cycle of disadvantage.

Dr Lauren A. Weber is Lecturer of Language, Literature and Literacy in the School of Education at the University of Wollongong. She specialises in the teaching and learning of English from primary to tertiary contexts and has published her research in a range of outlets including English in Education, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, and Cordite Poetry Review. She is a core member of the Shakespeare Reloaded project team. Lauren often works in community to connect children and young people with rich and authentic opportunities to read and write works of literature.

Dr Georgina Barton is a Professor of literacies and pedagogy at the University of Southern Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. She currently teaches English and literacy education courses in the post-graduate teacher education program. Georgina worked in many schools before becoming an academic and she conducts most of her research with teachers and students. With over 180 publications, her research often intersects between literacies, the arts and wellbeing. Georgina’s latest co-authored book titled Aesthetic Positive Pedagogy (Palgrave) is about a positive approach to literacy with aesthetics at the core of learning.

Dr Janet Dutton is Senior Lecturer in Secondary English at Macquarie University, NSW, Australia and was the Chief Examiner, NSW HSC English. A former English teacher, Janet has extensive experience designing and delivering teacher professional learning and is passionate promoting creative pedagogy. Janet researches in the areas of English curriculum, creative pedagogy for EAL/D learners, out of field teaching, transition to teaching and teacher retention.

Co-designed-professional-elarning-in-the-classroom-an-opportunity-for-reflexive-agency Download

The new wave of change: Artificial Intelligence and Education

In a world of rapidly advancing Artificial Intelligence, Leslie Loble and Kelly Stephens provide teachers with a framework of questioning when making decisions on using edtech to enhance teaching and learning. . .

In an era characterised by rapid technological advancements, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), we find ourselves at the brink of a ‘fourth industrial revolution.’ This revolution, fuelled by AI, is not just about the technology itself but about the profound impact it has on our daily lives – ‘a fundamental change in the way we live, work and relate to one another.’(World Economic Forum, 2024)

What does this mean for education? As teachers we are always encountering change as we strive to support students to live and learn in the contemporary world. Inherently curious and questioning, teachers are frequently early experimenters with new ways of doing things, especially if they sense benefits for their students or their profession. At the same time, teachers and education leaders are highly developed critical thinkers, with an inclination always to test the ‘why’ before adopting the ‘what’.

Nobody is better placed to navigate this new technological wave.

It is a little over a year since ChatGPT was released, creating excitement and alarm in equal measure. Oh wow, it can write a Shakespearean sonnet about a microwave, or help create a lesson plan. Oh dear, it can write to a rubric and generate a very passable essay. What does this mean for high-stakes assessment tasks? What does this mean for day-to-day teaching?

Before ChatGPT, the educational technology landscape was already being shaped by AI, with tools like adaptive learning platforms and predictive analytics available to support teaching and learning experiences. Only a year on, many applications have already incorporated generative AI into their platforms, and this number will doubtless grow. For example, the Microsoft suite offers the AI-enabled Copilot tool, Google now has Gemini and Khan Academy its Khanmigo chatbot.

Teachers are always looking for the best ways of supporting learning for the students in their classroom. NSW public school teachers are also always looking for ways to help lift the experiences, learning and outcomes for students experiencing disadvantage, and to tackle the enduring problem of educational inequity. There is strengthening evidence that good technological tools might be able to help us in this quest. To do so, however, they need to meet certain conditions. As outlined in the report Shaping AI and edtech to tackle Australia’s learning divide (Loble and Hawcroft, 2022), to create positive impact and avoid harm, edtech must be well designed, effectively used, and carefully managed.

There is more work for us to do as a society to ensure that these conditions are met – to make sure the edtech our students and teachers use are of high educational quality, ethical, safe and effective – without creating additional work for teachers and schools.

This article contributes to the conversation by suggesting five questions you might like to ask when considering using edtech in your teaching program. Spoiler alert: it’s all about doing what you already do – teaching first, technology second. Used well, good edtech can, and should, enhance and amplify your professionalism and expertise. In education, it is imperative we keep the human in the lead.

Five Key Questions to Consider

1.Which tool or resource should I choose?

We know that quality teaching tools and resources can make a difference in the classroom; teachers can, and do, invest significant time creating or finding resources they believe will work best. Edtech, including generative AI, has only increased the range of resources available to choose among. For example, even five years ago, there were nearly 500,000 learning applications just on the Apple and Google app stores.(Holon IQ, 2019) Resource publishers, including edtech providers, frequently approach schools with the intent of selling their products, often with a significant, ongoing price tag.

In making any choice:

Start with your whole-school strategy. We know that cohesive effort across a school community drives results. What are the key priorities in your school plan? Is there a useful app on the NSW Department of Education’s approved list?
Think about the curriculum and your pedagogy. We know that teachers have the greatest in-school impact on student outcomes. Does the tool align with, and support, quality teaching practice in your subject/s? A good edtech application should amplify teacher expertise and professionalism, not diminish it. For example, the right tool might help you carve out time to work with individuals or groups of students with differing needs, by providing an adaptive platform for others to use during that time.
Ask about the evidence base. Is it easy to find out what research informed the development of the tool? Was it informed by how students learn? Is there any research showing how well it has worked, in what circumstances and for whom?
Other markers of a quality tool include accessibility, and the security, privacy and ethical use of teacher and student data. There is more about accessibility and inclusion below, as well as about schools’ and teachers’ responsibilities regarding student data. Beyond this, it is worth asking, what type of student data a tool captures? (for example, does it include keystroke data and other monitoring of student behaviour?), who owns the data, and how it might be used?

It is often difficult to find the answers to these questions, and even when it is possible, it can take up precious time. There are some organisations that seek to make this process easier for teachers. Closest to home is the Department’s Online Learning Tools Catalogue. Tools listed here have been through an assessment process and integrated with the Department’s single sign on. Further afield, other organisations that review materials include EdReports,¹ Edtech Impact,²or Digital Promise.³

2.(How) Does this app help me understand more about my students’ learning?

Technology-based learning applications typically offer the ability to tailor student learning through adaptable lessons, activities, and assessments. For example, one tool offers possible lessons and activities around three broad levels – ‘core, deeper learning, or challenging’ – to allow teachers to scaffold and differentiate their instructional strategies based on student and class capabilities. Another tool gives students the option to select ‘something easier,’ or ‘something harder’; others use adaptive ‘branching’ to meet a student’s ability level and then move onto a greater challenge.

Most technology-based tools also now incorporate data dashboards for teachers, with displays that provide quick, easily accessed insights to student understanding and progress. Some tools also offer data on learning ‘flow’ or engagement. These data can be at quite granular levels (for example, by student, task, skill, curriculum unit and so forth) giving detailed, useful feedback to support a teacher’s plan and approach. Where a learning application also allows students to see their own data, it may help develop metacognitive skills (which are aligned with positive learning behaviours and outcomes (OECD, 2012).

But not every tool will work equally well or match a teacher’s classroom and students. The utility and impact of any tool rests strongly on how and when teachers decide to integrate it in their programming. Teachers deserve good information to understand the capabilities of the tool and its pedagogical design (as outlined above) and professional support to keep education technology use in proportion and firmly within their plan and control.

3.(How) does this application help me teach the full range of students in my classroom?

The craft of teaching depends on meeting a student at their point of learning development and need. We know that any classroom will have students working at a span of levels, sometimes a very wide span. NAPLAN data tells us that by Year 9, the range can be as great as five years.⁴At the same time, approximately one in four students in NSW public schools are living (and studying) with disability. (ACARA, 2023) Eighty-six percent of these are studying in mainstream classes in mainstream schools. (NSW Department of Education, 2022) Meeting the needs of all these learners is key to improving the equity of learning outcomes for students in NSW and beyond.

Technology should have an inbuilt advantage in meeting the needs of diverse learners, due to the potential to adjust even simple settings, such as font size, or incorporate translational functions (e.g., text to speech, or speech to text). These inbuilt functions are worth looking for. In addition, many applications are web-based. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 cover a wide range of recommendations for making web content more accessible, including accommodations for blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these, and some accommodation for learning disabilities and cognitive limitations. These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices.⁵

Adaptive learning systems are some of the best researched edtech applications and can help support students to develop mastery, including identifying and filling in learning gaps, and providing stretch learning opportunities.^[1] Teachers are also exploring the use of generative AI to make it easier and less time-consuming for them to adapt resources so that all students can effectively access the curriculum. For example, generative AI can quickly and easily rewrite passages of text for students with different reading levels. Of course, it is critical that teachers check any output from a generative AI tool for accuracy and suitability, from the perspective of their professional expertise.

Accessibility and inclusion don’t stop at technical adjustments and adaptability. Edtech – like all human creations – can be culturally insensitive or biased. An aspirational goal is that developers listen to and work with the communities most likely to be impacted by their products. Over time, we hope to see greater use of co-design and universal design for learning principles.

4.What type of AI does this application include?

Not all edtech includes AI and when it does, it is not necessarily generative AI. Very broadly, AI can be thought of in two types:

‘Good Old-Fashioned AI’ (known as GOFAI) – This encompasses a range of technologies including the chess program (Deep Blue) that beat Grandmaster Garry Kasparov in 1997 and the technology that serves up recommendations to us in our daily life – videos to watch, songs to listen to, people to befriend. These technologies have advantages of memory and computational force that far exceed human capacities (Tegmark, 2017). An upside of some of these applications is that they can learn from your choices and improve their advice to you. A downside is that they can contribute to a polarisation of views. You may notice that you rarely see suggested information that offers a different perspective from the one you already hold (hence the term ‘echo chamber’).
Generative AI – This technology is distinctive in that it doesn’t just analyse existing data and predict the future on the basis of the past but creates new data instances that resemble the data it ‘trained’ on. For example, ChatGPT was trained on large sections of the internet, including all of Wikipedia – approximately 300 billion words. (Hughes, 2023) Generative AI tools can generate language, but also images and increasingly long video segments. Unlike older types of AI, the generative AI models are so complex that even the creators cannot understand exactly why a tool produces the output that it does. (Heikkila, 2024)

Generative AI has raised particular concerns from an educational perspective, not least because it is known to ‘hallucinate.’ Because ChatGPT writes like an articulate human, it can be hard to spot when the tool is just making things up.

Other issues – such as bias – can arise regardless of the type of AI involved. The output of any algorithm is only as good as the data set it draws on, and the rules it applies to that data, both of which may reflect systemic inequity.⁷ This has been shown across many fields including education.⁸For example, the use of an algorithm to predict A-level results for UK students during COVID was found to systematically disadvantage students from state schools and had to be abandoned. (Gulson et al, 2021) Examples like this are powerful reminders that humans, not machines, remain accountable for decisions. When we do use technology to support student learning or streamline our work load, we need to stay abreast of its recommendations and adjust them when necessary.⁹

5.What data or information should I put into an app?

Personalisation can come at a price, and that price can be privacy. Recommendation engines improve the more they ‘know about’ (the more data they have on) the user. Data is highly valuable to many companies, including Edtech companies [KS2] . Data that can be linked to specific students, known as personally identifiable information (PII), falls under the Australian Privacy Act 1988 due to its sensitive nature. Personal information is any information that can be used to identify an individual directly or indirectly. It could be a student’s name, address, class, school, family details, fingerprints, or a combination of information from which a student or other individual can be identified.¹⁰Applications accessed via the NSW Department of Education’s Online Learning Tools Catalogue have data safeguards in place. Outside of that framework, the responsibility for the appropriate treatment of personal data rests with teachers and schools, with advice available.¹¹It is worth noting that ChatGPT uses your content – uploaded files, prompts and chat history – to train the model, unless you choose to opt out.¹²

Conclusion

Artificial Intelligence can be a polarising topic, represented as the answer to all our problems, or an impending risk to humanity. Educators are well positioned to avoid such extremes, approaching edtech firmly as a tool, not oracle, in service of the human pursuit of teaching and learning. If you would like to stay connected with our work seeking to ensure that edtech is leveraged for quality and equity across Australian schools, consider signing up to our mailing list here.

1. https://www.edreports.org/

² https://edtechimpact.com/

³ https://digitalpromise.org/

⁴ https://saveourschools.com.au/funding/close-the-achievement-gaps-between-rich-and-poor/; https://grattan.edu.au/news/our-schools-abound-in-under-achievement/

⁵ https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/

⁶ A synthesis by Escueta et al. (‘Upgrading education with technology: Insights from experimental research’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2020) finds that adaptive learning systems offer ‘enormous promise,’ with two-thirds of the high-quality research studies examined demonstrating substantial and statistically significant effects. Similarly, a meta-review of Intelligent Tutoring Systems by Kulik & Fletcher (‘Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 86, Issue 1, 2016) reports a mean effect size of 0.62 from their analysis of 50 controlled experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of ITS in elementary, secondary, and tertiary institutions. This effect size is considered moderate-to-large in social sciences and well above many other traditional education interventions.

⁷ For example, a data set ‘may not be representative or may contain associations that run counter to policy goals’ (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations, Washington DC, 2023), p.33.

⁸ For a very readable look at the way AI and algorithms can replicate and reinforce existing inequities, see Ellen Broad, Made by Humans: The AI Condition (Melbourne University Press, 2018).

⁹ Even when automated processes are explicitly designed as decision-support tools, we humans can defer overly to them due to our ‘trust in automated logic, lack of time and the convenience of relying on pre-processed data’ (Anna Huggins, ‘Addressing Disconnection: Automated Decision-Making, Administrative Law and Regulatory Reform,’ UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2021), p.1060.

¹⁰ https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/guidelines-regarding-use-of-generative-ai

¹¹ https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policyprocedures/pd-2024-0481/pd-2024-0481-01

¹² https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-data-is-used-to-improve-model-performance

ACARA (2023) ‘School Students with Disability’ ACARA website: https://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia/school-students-with-disability

Cobbold, T (2023 November 28) ‘Close the Achievement Gap Between Rich and Poor’ Save Our Schools (SOS) Australia website: https://saveourschools.com.au/funding/close-the-achievement-gaps-between-rich-and-poor/

Digital promise website: https://digitalpromise.org/

EdReports website: https://www.edreports.org/

EdTech Impact website: https://edtechimpact.com/

Gulson, K et al (2021 November 22) ‘Algorithms can decide your marks, your work prospects and your financial security How do you know they’re fair?’ The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/algorithms-can-decide-your-marks-your-work-prospects-and-your-financial-security-how-do-you-know-theyre-fair-171590

Heikkila, M (2024) ‘Nobody Knows How Technology Works’MIT Technology review website: https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/05/1089449/nobody-knows-how-ai-works/

Holon IQ website (2019 May 9) ‘Global Education Apps and the Android Ecosystem’ https://www.holoniq.com/notes/global-education-apps-the-android-ecosystem

Hughes, A (2023 September 26) ‘ChatGPT: Everything you need to know about OpenAI’s GPT- 4 tool’ BBC Science Focus website: https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/gpt-3

Hunter, J (2023 January 29) ‘Our schools abound in under achievement’ Grattan Institute website: https://grattan.edu.au/news/our-schools-abound-in-under-achievement/

Loble, L and Hawcroft, A (2022) Shaping AI and Edtech to Tackle Australia’s Learning Divide, University of Technology Sydney: ).

NSW Department of Education (2022) Progress Report: Improving outcomes for students with disability: https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/disability-learning-and-support/our-disability-strategy/Progress_Report_Improving_outcomes_for_students_with_disability_2022.PDF

OECD (2012) Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, OECD Publishing: https://asiasociety.org/files/equity-and-quality-in-education_0.pdf

Tegmark, M (2017) Life 3.0: Being human in the age of Artificial Intelligence, Penguin: p.78.

W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) website: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/

World Economic Forum (2024) Fourth industrial revolution website: https://www.weforum.org/focus/fourth-industrial-revolution/

Professor Leslie Loble AM is Chair of the Australian Network for Quality Digital Education. Leslie is a recognised leader of public purpose reform, both in Australia and the US. Leslie has spearheaded significant reform in school, tertiary and early childhood education, including the Gonski funding reforms, and establishment of the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, the Centre for Learning Innovation and the Catalyst Lab, within the NSW Department of Education. Leslie holds governance roles at the Australian Education Research Organisation and Copyright Agency and appointments to government expert advisory panels in education. She is Industry Professor at the University of Technology Sydney and affiliated with its Centre for Social Justice & Inclusion. Leslie is also a Paul Ramsay Foundation Fellow.

Dr Kelly Stephens is an experienced education policy and research leader. Kelly served as Director, Strategic Analysis within the NSW Department of Education’s Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation for a decade, where she played a leading role in the development of the School Excellence Framework and the fostering of evidence-based practice through What Works Best. Kelly has also held leadership roles in the Centre for Learning Innovation, the Education for a Changing World program, and as Director, Schools Policy, where she managed the strategic policy framework for K–12 education. Kelly supports the Network and its associated work program as Director, Edtech and Education Policy.

The-New-Wave-of-Change-Artificial-Intelligence-and-Education Download

Making Equity Matter

Geoff Gallop challenges us to commit to the aspirational goals of ‘excellence’ and ‘equity’ in education in a world of meritocratic hubris. . .

“Equity in education as the fundamental education policy is important not only for economic reasons, but it is a moral imperative especially in those countries that have made a promise to give all their people a fair go”. (Sahlberg and Cobbold ,2021)

Any commentary on what we ought to expect from the nation’s education system needs to start with the Education Ministers and their Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (Education Council, 2019). Its over-arching and aspirational goals for the system as a whole are “excellence” and “equity”. I interpret this to mean (1) a system that is continually improving in educational performance and (2) one that pushes hard to ensure all who access it can realise their talents and capacities. So too, our ministers say, it ought it be a system that helps create “confident and creative individuals” with “high expectations for their educational outcomes”. These objectives should never be far from our mind, they represent a promise to the people as to what we should expect from our schooling system.

Such goals are particularly relevant to the government sector within whose classrooms are “the vast bulk of students with disability and disadvantage”.¹ The NSW statistics relevant to the finding are as follows:

The number of students with disability estimated to attract funding support has increased by almost 300 per cent since 2002.
The number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) students in public schools has risen by 83 per cent from 2004 to 2019.
The number of students from a language background other than English (LBOTE) has increased by 45 per cent from 2004 to 2019.
Students classified from a low socio-educational advantage (SEA) status now make up 32 per cent of the student population.
One-third of NSW’s low SEA students live in regional, rural and remote areas and 86 per cent of those are enrolled in public schools. ²

With these facts related to a segregated system on the table, we are obliged to go further and ask whether or not our stated objectives of excellence, equity and creativity are being achieved, not just for some but for all segments of our society, including the disadvantaged? In Australian language it’s what we call a “fair go”!

Sahlberg and Cobbold

In taking up such a challenge, both philosophically and practically, we have been greatly assisted by the work of Pasi Sahlberg and Trevor Cobbold. They note the deficiency of the current National Schooling Reform Agreement (NSRA), namely that it doesn’t clearly enough define “equity-in-education”. They point to plenty of loose talk about “equality of opportunity” but insufficient clarity about it for policymaking, implementation and evaluation.

Their solution to this has two aspects:

“First, from an individual perspective, equity in education outcomes should mean that all children receive an education that enables them to fully participate in adult society in a way of their choosing. We can refer to this as an adequate education. Second, equity in education should also mean that students from different social groups achieve similar average outcomes and a similar range of these outcomes. We call this social equity-in-education”. Sahlberg, and Cobbold, (2021 pp12 -13)

Their definition of “equity-in-education” is particularly significant because:

“…it is unreasonable to expect in education policies or in school leadership strategies that all children will achieve the same education outcomes because, as individuals, they have a range of abilities and talents which lead to different choices in schooling. However, it is reasonable to expect that these different abilities and talents are distributed similarly across different social, ethnic and gender groups in society”. Sahlberg, and Cobbold, (2021 pp12 -13)

Put the two objectives together – an adequate education for all and more equity in educational outcomes across the society – and we have a strong and meaningful basis for guiding design and evaluation.

Sahlberg and Cobbold also point out that there may very well be groups within groups, “sub-groups” as they call them. For example, they may exist between indigenous students in remote as opposed to urban settings. This necessarily complicates the objective of improving social equity and needs to be thought through as required. It doesn’t, however, change the argument for equity.

Fairness and Public Policy

There are conservative commentators who dispute the assumption that different abilities and talents are distributed similarly within the groups that make up society. They are left defending hierarchy as in some sense “natural” or, for all of its faults, a better and more stable way to run a society, especially if there is room for some upward mobility. More to the point, and counter to Cobbold and Sahlberg, such conservatives say that fairness can’t actually be the focus of public policy, even as a generalised aspiration. Pushing the system towards equity-in-education may be good in “theory” but in “practice” it leads to more harm than good, upsetting as it does merit based decision making. This is so, says leading conservative critic, F.A. Hayek, because social justice is a “mirage”, “meaningless” and incompatible with a liberal, market society. (Hayek, 1976)

In response to this we are all obliged to ask the question: Why shouldn’t we aspire to more equality in educational outcomes as part of a broader agenda of fairness for all? It’s an objective derived from our human rights commitments (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26) and one that gives clarity to the anti-discrimination implications of those commitments. Whether it be gender, class, race, ethnicity or domicile around which we gather relevant information, we ought to ensure that educational outcomes allow equal access to further education, highly paid occupations and influential positions in society. We ought to be widening rather than limiting the pool of talent. (Sahlberg and Cobbold, 2021)

Let me now turn to some of the relevant statistics. On the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) Cobbold writes:

“The paper shows that 28% of low SES Year 9 students were below the national reading standard in 2022, 35% were below the writing standard and 15% were below the numeracy standard. Nearly 30% of Indigenous students were below the reading standard, 38% were below the writing standard and 16% were below the numeracy standard. Nearly one-third of remote area students were below the reading standard, 46% were below the writing standard and 15% were below the numeracy standard. By contrast, only 3% of Year 9 high SES students did not achieve the reading standard, 5% did not achieve the writing standard and 1% did not achieve the numeracy standard.

These are shocking inequities. For example, it is totally unacceptable that the percentage of low SES Year 9 students not achieving the national reading standard is 9 times that of high SES students and the proportion of Indigenous and remote area students not achieving the standard is 10 times that of high SES students”.

In some areas there were improvements but not enough to say that there isn’t “an appalling inequity” in the system.(Cobbold, 2023)

Do Schools Matter?

It is the case, of course, that social and economic factors play a crucial – some say decisive role – in all of this. A radical interpretation of these SES factors is that of sociologist – and social mobility scholar, John Goldthorpe (2020) . He writes: “It’s not schools and universities, but differences in home environments, and particularly the time parents can give their children, that are the obstacles to equality of opportunity”. Another perspective is that of the OECD who say that “some children from disadvantaged households do achieve strong outcomes, demonstrating that equitable outcomes are possible”.(OECD, 2022) Note the reference to “some” rather than “many”!

My conclusion from this is the same as that of Sahlberg and Cobbold:

Schools are in a constant battle against the reproduction of inequality and poverty in society. Since the out-of-school factors explain majority of variation in students’ achievement in school, their efforts must be supported by economic and social policies to reduce growing inequality and poverty. Sahlberg, and Cobbold, (2021 pp16 -17)

I would read this as saying that both external, SES factors, and internal, school factors, need to be working in tandem to ensure adequacy and improve equality outcomes, step by step, as part of a broader ambition to bring about a fairer and more productive society.

It’s Sahlberg’s view that it’s not just the continuous reproduction or disadvantage that holds back educational equity but also the policy agenda that has dominated in recent decades. He calls it the Global Education Reform Movement (or GERM) and it involves standardisation, a focus on core subjects, the search for low-risk ways of reaching learning goals, the use of corporate management models and test-based accountability policies”.(Sahlberg, 2012) Unless qualified with some real-world issues related to teachers position in the labour market, school leadership and management, classroom realities and, of course, school funding, such an agenda is bound to fail if improved educational outcomes are the objective.³

A Meritocracy?

The twin pursuit of excellence and equity is not helped either by what Professor Michael Sandel has called “meritocratic hubris” or the tendency of those who land on top to believe that their success is their own doing and, by implication, that those who were left behind, must deserve their fate as well”. Underpinning this hubris is “the tendency to forget our indebtedness to family, teachers, community, country, and the times in which we live as conditions for the success that we enjoy”.(Sandel, 2020)

Certainly more competition for jobs at the top and more diversity in the CEO class that emerges is in the public interest. Former OECD economist Adrian Blundell-Wignall puts it this way: “Inequality in the market for education is a barrier to long-term success” and is clearly in play in Australia. He points to the “remarkable outperformance of students from expensive private schools for entry to the best university courses, and their eventual dominance of corporal boardrooms”. (Blundell-Wignall, 2023) In other joint studies of the experience of the USA, France and Sweden, he finds evidence consistent with views “that more egalitarian societies that value innate ability more than social standing will generate better commercial leadership and economic performance than countries that do not”. (Atkinson and Blundell-Wignall, 2021)

In relation to GERM and the policies it produces, none have been as influential as “choice and competition” as opposed to “excellence and equity”. It leads to the conclusion that the government sector is best set up as a collection of semi-independent schools, minimally united and supported. This isn’t, as we argued in the first chapter of Valuing the teaching profession, “a sound basis upon which to build the commitment, capacities and leadership needed to turn the corner of disadvantage.” (Gallop, Kavanagh, and Lee , 2021) Let alone is it the basis to pursue equality of outcomes (as defined by Sahlberg and Cobbold). Our policy makers need a strategic, co-ordinated and prioritised approach to the way it builds its public school system.

It’s the case that many of the challenges facing principals and classroom teachers today are being experienced by all schools, government and non-government. Mental health issues and behavioural issues are at play in society – and, therefore, in classrooms today. In relation to this there’s plenty of evidence to lead us to conclude that the pursuit of equality – in all of its manifestations – starting with income and material equality puts schools in a better position to tackle those challenges.⁴

Thus far I’ve addressed some of the realities that make difficult the achievement of improved performance in both excellence and equity – the sociology of disadvantage, the politics of GERM and the ideology of meritocracy. On the other side of the equation we now have a clear definition of equity and what can demonstrate whether progress is – or isn’t – being made in that direction. This is the breakthrough that gives definition and structure to the argument.⁵

Strengths of Government Schools

We know too, that the all-important government sector has strengths lacking in the non-government sector – and which can be mobilised for progress in equity.

We know, for example, that within the limits laid down by the social and economic environment within which schools operate, government schools perform as well as their non-government counterparts, and that is the case even with all the resources and infrastructure the private sector has to provide for its students. (Larson, 2022)

We know too, that state (public) school graduates do better at university than private school graduates within the same end-of-school tertiary entrance score, this being “a clear finding” in England as well as Australia. (Preston, 2014)^.

We know too, that values, more inclusive and science-based than propagated in parts of the non-government sector, prevail in government schools. Learning to live with differences, a basic requirement for policy-makers in a multicultural society, is at the core of the mission of a government school today.⁶

In noting these positive drivers related to a government school system, I’m reminded of the early years of the Australian Nation when public sector institutions or enterprises were set up with the clear aim of not only competing with private sector equivalents but also seeking best practice in what they do. It soon became obvious that strong political support was needed – in funding and organisational innovation – if we were to create a genuine mixed economy. The same applies today, and in the context of education needs to be strategic and more than strong, and coming from both the national and state arms of government.

The politics of all of this can’t be avoided. Myths are myths. Prejudice is prejudice but it doesn’t mean they won’t be influential. A significant portion of the community have come to see the education debate in terms of choice (parents) and competition (government). They want government priorities to support their own families and their own children. It’s that old battle that can’t be avoided, self-interest versus the public interest. It’s one thing to have a mix that seeks to reconcile the two principles, quite another to allow one of the two elements to undermine the other.

Definition, measurement and reporting

More practically our focus needs to be on developing further the work on the statistics and information generally needed in relation to “equity-in-education”. As Cobbold has put it:

“A clear definition of equity in education is fundamental to making real progress towards it. Not only would it clarify expectations about equity but it is necessary to set clear achievement targets for students from different social groups and monitor progress in achieving equity. It is equally necessary to ensure government accountability for making progress on equity”. (Cobbold, 2022)

Currently, says Cobbold, reporting on progress is deficient. The same points are made by Jim Tognolini and Tom Alegounarias(2021) “ The relative lack of confidence in key concepts or generally understood definitions in the assessment domain is, therefore, an acute problem in teaching”

In relation to this “The inculcation of higher order thinking skills, non-cognitive skills, and competencies into the Australian Curriculum, in accord with the 2019 Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration, has raised the stakes for beginning teachers to be able to teach, assess, interpret and measure progress on skills that have been traditionally found difficult, if not impossible, to measure” (Tognolini and Alegounarias, 2021)Making equity matter in all our thinking about education isn’t easy and, as we have seen, has its detractors and, indeed, its enemies. It requires a commitment that all may not share and it requires serious work in the province of measurement and assessment. It’s a – work – in – progress that needs leadership from our public schools as well as partnerships between them and the wider community, including our researchers.

Certainly, I trust that nothing I have written is meant to imply that “confident curriculum expertise” and “basic and varied pedagogical principles” aren’t crucial in the education endeavour (Tognolini and Alegounarias, 2021). Indeed they are, but unless they are backed up with “assessment expertise” and framed in the way outlined by Sahlberg and Cobbold (2021) there is every chance that only little – if any – dents into the prevailing inequalities will be possible.

Education Department quoted in Gallop, G, Kavanagh, T and Lee, P, Valuing the teaching profession (2021), p. 20.
Ibid.
See Gallop, G, Kavanagh, T and Lee, P, Valuing the teaching profession (2021) for an alternative approach to “reform”.
See Wilkinson, R and Pickett, K “Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction”, Annu.Rev.Social, 2009:35:493-511.

See also, Cobbold, T. “Equity in Education must be clearly defined, measured and reported”, Pearls and Irritations, 1 July 2022.
See Gallop, G. Evolving Partnerships in Education (Australian College of Education, 1990), pp. 43-44.

Blundell-Wignall, A (2023 December 19) “Tip private schools out of boardrooms for a more productive Australia”, Australian Financial Review.

https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/tip-private-schools-out-of-boardrooms-for-a-more-productive-australia-20231212-p5equl#:~:text=Opinion-,Tip%20private%20schools%20out%20of%20boardrooms%20for%20a%20more%20productive,capital%20might%20have%20to%20offer.&text=Rising%20productivity%20is%20essential%20for%20a%20sustainable%20economy.

Carroll, L and Harris, C ( 2023 December 5) “Australia’s long-term slide in reading, maths and science”, Sydney Morning Herald.

Cobbold, T., (2022 July 1)“Equity in Education must be clearly defined, measured and reported”, Pearls and Irritations.

Cobbold,T., (2023 February 13 ) “Shocking inequity in NSW school outcomes and funding”, Pearls and Irritations.

Education Council (2019). Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration.

https://www.education.gov.au/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/resources/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration

Gallop, G, Kavanagh, T and Lee, P, Valuing the teaching profession (2021),

https://www.nswtf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Valuing-the-teaching-profession-Gallop-Inquiry.pdf

See the 2023 update of the report:

https://www.nswtf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Valuing-the-teaching-profession-Update.pdf

Goldthorpe, J ( 2020 March 17) Quoted in Peter Wilby, “The expert in social mobility”, The Guardian,

Hayek, F.A, (1976) Law, Legislation and Liberty

Larson, S et al, (2022, January 3) “The public private debate”, The Australian Educational Review.

OECD (2022) Equity in education: the foundation for a more resilient future

Preston, B (2014 July 17) “State school kids do better at Uni”, The Conversation.

https://theconversation.com/state-school-kids-do-better-at-uni-29155

Sahlberg, P., (2012) a blog – “Global Education Reform Movement is here!”

Global Educational Reform Movement is here!

Sahlberg, P and Cobbold, T (2021) “Leadership for equity and adequacy in education”, School Leadership and Management, 20 May 2021,

Sandel, M (2020, September 14) Quoted in Evan Osnos, “A Political Philosopher on why Democrats should think differently about merit”, The New Yorker.

Tognolini,J. and Alegounarias, T (2021) Submission to the Quality Teacher Education Review

Wilkinson, R and Pickett (2009) K “Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction”, Annu.Rev.Social, 2009:35:493-511.

Emeritus Professor Dr Geoff Gallop AC FASS was Director of Sydney University’s Graduate School of Government from 2006 to 2015. From 1986 to 2006 he was a Labor Party Member of Western Australia’s Legislative Assembly, a Minister in the Lawrence Government from 1990 to 1993 and Premier from 2001 to 2006. Currently he is the chair of the Research Committee for the New Democracy Foundation, a director of the Constitutional Education Fund of Australia, and a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

He recently chaired a NSW Teachers Federation commissioned inquiry into the wages and working conditions for government school teachers in NSW.

Making-Equity-Matter Download

NSW Syllabus: A Celebration of Public Education

The recent introduction of a new syllabus spurred this English Faculty to build and embed trust, transparency, and collaboration as the drivers of a cohesive and effective staffroom. Amy Peace and Louise Turk take us through the processes…

How To Build A Harmonious And Productive Workplace Culture

The celebration of the new English Syllabus began with the formation of a circle of colleagues, at Woonona High School, a co-educational secondary school in the northern suburbs of the Illawarra, NSW, on Dharawal Country. Each member of the English Faculty introduced themselves and their favourite reading text to other teachers within the school, and to guests from the wider educational community.

The circle was a metaphor. It was a symbol of equality amongst those who made the formation and a powerful emblem for the potential of transforming student thinking through a dynamic educational framework. Most importantly, it was an authentic circle. Its geometric simplicity was underpinned by an edifice which had taken leadership direction and considerable time to develop.

Before the launch day in November 2023, during which the English Faculty shared its new programming and resolute forward vision with the school community, a purposeful and steady change in work culture had been taking place. Faculty Head Teacher (acting), Ms Amy Peace, led a transformation to foster collaboration amongst Faculty members, and to develop their skills to respond to rapid change in the workplace. It involved providing opportunities for colleagues to build trust, innervating the sharing of ideas and knowledge and the desire to work together.

Building relational trust was the primary goal in equipping teachers to deal with the demands of preparing to introduce a new English Syllabus while, simultaneously, teaching the current syllabus (Hawkins, 2020). Peace, who is undertaking a Masters in Educational Leadership, understood the importance of creating a climate in which Faculty members could take necessary risks and experiment with innovation, and engage in robust professional dialogue (Barsade, 2002; Goleman,1999; Lipscombe et.al. 2020). The English Faculty needed to become an environment of transparency and accountability and one in which there was shared responsibility. She set to work.

We relied on each other for logistical and emotional support. Having a collective approach to the syllabus implementation helped to reduce the cognitive load and stress of programming and helped to create more comprehensive and exciting learning opportunities as we used each other as soundboards to generate new learning experiences and projects.

-Mr Jack Stranger, English classroom teacher

Peace focused on managing the wellbeing of the staff and developing a strong sense of Faculty identity (Goleman, 1999). The design and creation of a Faculty logo, with the visual imagery of an open book sprouting knowledge through metaphorical flowers, helped to create a sense of cohesion and foster a sense of pride amongst staff. The logo was proudly emblazoned on work shirts and was used as a watermark on digital resources. Its calming forest green palette became the thematic colour when the English classroom doors were repainted, transforming them from a less inspiring beige tint. Peace designed a Faculty flag, embedded with the logo, which was displayed at whole school meetings.

The physical environment of the staffroom was de-cluttered and purposefully organised, with all Faculty members sharing the responsibility for keeping the space clean and tidy. Ergonomic chairs were purchased. Fragrant reed diffusers, a coffee machine, a soda machine, and a hand-towel dispenser were added to the staffroom space. A display box in the English corridor featured professional photos of Faculty members. Small additions, one may ponder, but not insignificant when you are building a workplace culture of happiness and inclusion (Hawkins, 2020). Staff birthdays were celebrated with cake. The success of staff was celebrated weekly in school newsletters, bulletins, faculty meetings and with handmade cards, designed and crafted by the Woonona High School Principal, Ms Caroline David. David hand-wrote congratulatory messages inside the card and left the messages of acknowledgement on staff desks (across the school) with chocolate or home baked brownies. She frequently matched the photos or motifs around which she designed the cards to a personal connection with a staff member. David knew your favourite colour and which beach was closest to the coastal town where you grew up. It was the accumulation of these small but very deliberate and consistent affirmations towards staff that made coming to work a joyful process.

I love coming to work! My colleagues are the best and I really care about each one of them. I feel totally supported. I have never worked in a faculty that works so harmoniously together while also being honest and clear with each other – it is really refreshing. Amy (Peace) fosters this approach and is clear and kind to all of us in a calm and considered way.

-Ms Louisa Smith, English Faculty, second in charge

The English Faculty culture at Woonona High School is one that is built upon a steadfast foundation of a love for literature and the everlasting joys that come from this lifelong engagement. I believe that this bedrock is conducive to English as a subject being held in popular regard by students and staff within the school community, as the infectious nature of this mutually-held passion is an example in which students can, and do, follow. Further, the level of collegial support is unparalleled, both professionally and interpersonally. Genuine care and kindness are never absent, and again, it is this ethos, as set by the English staff at Woonona High School, that inspires students and staff alike to strive to be “Lifelong Learners”.

-Mr Saxon Penn, English classroom teacher

The next step in creating a workplace culture ready for rapid change was to introduce processes that would reduce the cognitive load for teachers (Sweller,1988). Clear and transparent processes were necessary to create an equitable teaching environment in which every individual understood their role and contribution. New templates were created for learning programs and scope and sequences. The role of year coordinators was clearly defined. The sharing of programs and resources on the Faculty Google Drive was refined to make the location of information more streamlined.

At the start of the implementation phase of the new syllabus in 2023, the Faculty designed a collaborative timeline for the next twelve months. This collaborative and critically reflective process allowed for a visualisation of the journey ahead (Jefferson, 2017). Time in Faculty meetings was devoted to assessing how current programs could be modified to meet the requirements of the new syllabus.

Collaboration within the Woonona High School English Faculty and collaboration between six schools in the Illawarra; Dapto, Illawarra Sports, Kiama, Lake Illawarra and Warrawong High Schools (known as the Curriculum Network Illawarra (CNI) Professional Learning Network) ensured the transition between syllabi was an efficient process. The slow and methodical systems and processes resulted in accuracy, agency and accountability.

The first step was to audit our programs to identify the gaps and opportunities in our current scope and sequence. I initially found myself quite confused and overwhelmed at how we would navigate this process and found that taking the initiative to collaboratively design processes was the best way to visualise where we were at and where we needed to go. By creating a syllabus outcomes checklist, we were able to evaluate our programs in a comprehensive and consistent way which made it easier to “respoke the wheel” as opposed to starting from scratch.

-Mr Jack Stranger, English classroom teacher

Time in Faculty meetings to discuss changes, State-wide professional learning and staff development days with a focus on new directions, new texts, and the wording of outcomes really helped to clarify my understanding of the new syllabus.

-Mrs Marnie Whidden, English classroom teacher

The mood of the launch of the new English Syllabus last November can best be described as incandescent. Staff from across all Faculties at Woonona High School, the executive of the school, student representatives, and community representatives including the NSW Teachers Federation President, Mr Henry Rajendra and NSW Teachers’ Federation Organiser, Mr Duncan McDonald, were united in an exciting vision for the future.

That vision includes creating an educational landscape in which student voice and agency are at the forefront of the English classroom. Was the plan to build relational capability within the English Faculty at Woonona High School a success and, ultimately, will it make a difference to the social and academic progress of students? The last word goes to classroom teacher, Mr Shane Pratt.

I feel confident moving forward and implementing changes. One of the largest reasons I feel this confidence is because I feel supported by my faculty and my head teacher. I feel empowered to try new ideas and implement my own flair to programming and don’t feel restricted or inhibited to make the program my own.

If we have teachers feeling confident and empowered in the workplace, then this will only lead to increased positive outcomes for our students.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2018). National Literacy Learning Progression (adapted for NSW Syllabuses). https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/32837681-1ffc-49b3-8069-c756611ff054/national-literacy-learning-progression.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and its Influence on Group Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912

Goleman, D. (1999) Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury, England.

Hattie, J. (2011) Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximising Impact on Learning. Taylor & Frances Ltd, England.

Hawkins, G. (2020) Mentally At Work, Mentally At Work, Melbourne, Australia.

Jefferson, M. & Anderson, M. (2017) Transforming Schools: Creativity, Critical Reflection, Communication, Collaboration. Bloomsbury, Australia

Lipscombe, K., Bennett, S., Kidson, P., Gardiner, P. & McIntyre, A. (2020). Leadership for Learning Frameworks. Sydney: NSW School Leadership Institute. https://ro.uow.edu.au/asshpapers/150

NSW Education Standards Authority (2022) English K-10 Syllabus https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/english/english-k-10-2022/overview

John Sweller ( 1988 April – June) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning Cognitive Science Vol 12 Issue 2 257 -285

– Cognitive Load Theory – an explanation:

https://wind4change.com/cognitive-load-theory-john-sweller-instructional-design/
https://leadinglearnerdotme.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/3-cognitive-load-theory-sweller-via-cese.pdf

Louise Turk is a classroom teacher and 2iC in the English Faculty at Woonona High School. She is a Higher School Certificate marker in English Advanced and English Standard. This is her ninth year teaching English for the NSW Department of Education. Turk is a former Fairfax journalist.

Amy Peace is the Head Teacher (rel.) of English at Woonona High School. She has been championing Public Education for sixteen years in various roles, including Teachers’ Federation Women’s Contact, Curriculum Network Illawarra (CNI) Leader and Higher School Certificate marker. Her passions are improving equity in teaching and learning and driving systemic change to improve conditions for teachers and students.

NSW-Syllabus-A-Celebration-of-Public-Education Download

Tell Me Your Story: Supporting EAL/D students in language and literacy development

Overview

The focus of this one day course presented by Kathy Rushton and Joanne Rossbridge is to develop understandings and strategies for participants who support EAL/D students in both small groups and mainstream classrooms.

Practical strategies will be provided to foster the use of English language while encouraging students to use all the linguistic resources that they bring to school, including the use of their first language. Consideration will be given to the wellbeing framework and supporting students in an inclusive environment which honours and confirms their identity, language, and culture.

Participants will:

Extend their knowledge, skills and understanding in the development of oral language with
links to the mode continuum to support English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D)
students.
Explore the relationship between spoken and written language through unpacking lexical
density and grammatical intricacy
Engage in activities to expand their strategies to develop a reading sequence with
consideration of Field, Tenor and Mode, vocabulary and language features
Engage in activities showcasing strategies in developing a ‘tanslanguaging space’ to support
literacy.
Extend their understanding on the role of joint construction in the teaching and learning cycle.

4 September 2026 at NSW Teachers Federation, Surry Hills

All CPL courses run from 9am to 3pm.

$220

Please note, payment for courses is taken after the course takes place.

Joanne Rossbridge is an independent language and literacy consultant working in both primary and secondary schools and with teachers across Australia. She has worked as a classroom teacher and literacy consultant with the DET (NSW). Her expertise and much of her experience is in working with students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Joanne is particularly interested in student and teacher talk and how talk about language can assist the development of language and literacy.

Kathy Rushton is interested in the development of language and literacy especially in disadvantaged communities. She has worked as a classroom teacher and literacy consultant and provides professional learning for teachers in the areas of language and literacy development. Her current research projects include a study of multilingual pre-service teachers and the impact that teacher professional learning has on the development of a creative pedagogical stance which supports translanguaging and student identity and wellbeing.

Primary and Secondary teachers who support EAL/D students in both small groups and mainstream classrooms.

Teacher Librarians

Supporting Students with ADHD in 7-10

Overview

The Supporting Students with ADHD in 7-10 course is designed to support teachers to:

develop an understanding of the wide range of characteristics of students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD);
explore a range of strategies which address the needs of students with ADHD in the areas of language and cognitive development, communication skills and social behaviour;
develop specific strategies to help students with ADHD access the curriculum, and
develop an understanding for the need for explicit instruction in the essential components of literacy in every classroom every day.

Monday 23 March 2026, Online via Zoom

Wednesday 24 June 2026, Surry Hills

All CPL courses run from 9am to 3pm.

Dr Roselyn Dixon has been a special education teacher in both mainstream and special education settings in primary and secondary schools. Rose has been in academia and involved with Inclusive Education for more than 25 years. She has published research in the fields of social skills and behavioural interventions for people with a range of disabilities including students with Oppositional Defiance Disorders and Autism.

She has been actively involved in examining the relationship between digital technologies and pedagogy in special education and inclusive classrooms for students with Autism as well as the implications of the NDIS on people with disabilities in rural and remote communities. Rose is an Honorary Associate Professor at the School of Education, University of Wollongong, where she was previously the Academic Director of Inclusive and Special Education. She continues to support doctoral students in Inclusive and Special education with a focus on Autism.

Secondary Teachers

Special Education Teachers

School Counsellors

Learning and Support Teachers

$220 (Federation members only)

Please note, payment for courses is taken after the course takes place.

Online via Zoom

Supporting Students with ADHD in K-6

Overview

The Supporting Students with ADHD in K-6 course is designed to support teachers to:

develop an understanding of the wide range of characteristics of students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD);
explore a range of strategies which address the needs of students with ADHD in the areas of language and cognitive development, communication skills and social behaviour;
develop specific strategies to help students with ADHD access the curriculum, and
develop an understanding for the need for explicit instruction in the essential components of literacy in every classroom every day.

Friday 20 February 2026, online via Zoom
Wednesday 28 October 2026, Surry Hills
Wednesday 18 November 2026, online via Zoom

All CPL courses run from 9am to 3pm.

Dr Rose Dixon

Primary teachers

Special Education teachers

School Counsellors

Learning and Support Teachers

$220 (Federation members only)

Please note, payment for courses is taken after the course takes place.

Online

Teachers’ work and working conditions: Collaborating to drive change

Susan McGrath-Champ et al. introduce a series of articles on teachers’ work and working conditions. Their work provides an update to “Understanding work in schools, The Foundation for teaching and learning”, the 2018 report to the NSW Teachers Federation. The report examined the administrative demands that encroach on the work of teachers and impede their capacity to focus on tasks directly related to their teaching and to students’ learning. . .

Across the globe, teachers’ workload is a concern. Internationally (OECD, 2022) and within Australia (Gavin et al., 2021) studies show that workload is having adverse effects on teachers’ health and wellbeing, and is negatively impacting teacher recruitment and retention. Via a series of projects facilitated and funded by the NSW Teachers Federation, our research over the past ten years has exposed the considerable challenges many teachers face in a schooling system that is increasingly segregated by policies that encourage ‘choice’ and inequitable funding schemes. Teachers, through all our research, have called for greater support and recognition from their employer, and wish to feel valued for the important work they do in schools. The hallmark, collaborative study Understanding Work in Schools: A Foundation for Teaching and Learning (McGrath-Champ et al., 2018) revealed the extent of long working hours by teachers, identified unceasing policy changes and demands as a key cause, documented the vast array of work activities carried out by teachers, and identified strategies that are needed to address this workload problem. This provided a basis for the landmark Gallop Inquiry (Gallop et al., 2020) which confirmed these findings and other pressures facing teachers in their work.

Teachers are the heart of students’ learning, and good conditions of work improve the learning conditions of students. It is teachers in NSW public schools who have been, and are, fundamental to our stream of research. The suite of short research summaries in this thematic collection shares with Federation members the key findings of this research so far, with access to full papers and reports made available where possible via reference hyperlinks.¹

Partnership with Federation has been, and continues to be, key to quality research (McGrath-Champ et al., 2022). Collaboration ensures meaningful, well-informed findings and insights, and is a crucial step to driving needed change in government policy and in schools. Findings from this research have been actioned via Federation’s advocacy, negotiation and lobbying of various groups, as well as separately through the Work in Schools Research Team making written submissions to parliamentary (e.g. NSW Legislative Council, 2022) and government (e.g. Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2022) bodies.

This brand new section of the Journal of Professional Learning (JPL) consists of four summaries in broad thematic areas which collate and narrate research publications our team has produced via projects supported by the Teachers’ Federation. The first summary, ‘Teacher workload and intensifying demands’, documents work intensification and overload, and deploys a ‘tsunami’ analogy to describe the impact of escalating paperwork and administration which requires teachers to ‘triage’ components of their daily work. Devolution and the neo-liberal drive towards school autonomy are key causes of this workload, which are outlined in the second summary (‘The impact of devolutionary reform on teachers and principals’). Other impacts including growing job insecurity, ‘job scarring’ and increased use of temporary employment are profiled in the third summary (‘Temporary teachers and precarious work’). The final summary (‘Teachers’ voices and their unions’) discusses issues of unionism and professionalisation in teaching.

In this introduction and the thematic summaries that follow, we have endeavoured, as much as possible, to cite open-access material for both our own and others’ research. Where this is our own work, we have usually linked to an institutional repository. This page will provide a link to the fully published version of the article and, often, a link to a freely-available ‘post-print’ version (where journal embargoes allow). Full publication details are also available in the reference lists provided.

Australian Government Productivity Commission. (2022). Review of the National School Reform Agreement. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/school-agreement/report

Gallop, G., Kavanaugh, P. & Lee, P. (2020). Valuing the teaching profession: An independent inquiry. https://www.nswtf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Valuing-the-teaching-profession-Gallop-Inquiry.pdf

Gavin, M., McGrath-Champ, S., Wilson, R., Fitzgerald, S., & Stacey, M. (2021). Teacher workload in Australia: national reports of intensification and its threats to democracy. In S. Riddle, A. Heffernan, & D. Bright (Eds.), New perspectives on education for democracy (pp. 110-123). Routledge.

McGrath-Champ, S., Gavin, M., Stacey, M., & Wilson, R. (2022). Collaborating for policy impact: Academic-practitioner collaboration in industrial relations research. Journal of Industrial Relations 64(5), 759-784. https://doi.org/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00221856221094887

McGrath-Champ, S., Wilson, R., Stacey, M., & Fitzgerald, S. (2018). Understanding work in schools. https://www.nswtf.org.au/files/18438_uwis_digital.pdf

NSW Legislative Council. (2022). Great teachers, great schools: Lifting the status of teaching, teacher quality and teacher numbers in New South Wales. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2882/Report%20No.48%20-%20PC%203%20-%20Teacher%20Shortages%20in%20NSW.pdf OECD. (2022). Teacher working conditions. https://gpseducation.oecd.org/revieweducationpolicies/#!node=41734&filter=all

Susan McGrath-Champ is Professor in Work and Organisational Studies at the University of Sydney Business School, Australia. She has a PhD from Macquarie University, Sydney and a Masters degree from the University of British Columbia, Canada. Her research includes the geographical aspects of the world of work, employment relations and international human resource management. Recent studies include those of school teachers’ work and working conditions.

Meghan Stacey is a former secondary school teacher and current Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at UNSW Sydney. Meghan’s research interests are in the sociology of education and education policy, with a particular focus on the critical policy sociology of teachers’ work. Her first book, The business of teaching: Becoming a teacher in a market of schools, was published in 2020 with Palgrave Macmillan.

Dr Scott Fitzgerald is an Associate Professor in the School of Management at Curtin Business School, Curtin University. His research interests are in the broad areas of industrial relations, human resource management, organisational behaviour and organisation studies. His research expertise also spans various disciplines: sociology, political economy and media and communication studies. A key focus of Scott’s recent research has been the changing nature of governance, professionalism and work in the education sector.

Mihajla Gavin is a Senior 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.

Rachel Wilson is Professor, Social Impact at the University of Technology Sydney. Her research takes a system perspective on design and management of education systems and their workforce. 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.

Susan-McGrath-Champ-et-al-JPL-18 Download

The impact of devolutionary reform on teachers and principals

Scott Fitzgerald et al. reflect on the shift from centralised decision-making to increased school autonomy and the resultant impact on teachers and principals . . .

Over the last decade in Australia, devolution and school autonomy have affected teachers’ and principals’ roles, workloads and working relations within schools. The moves towards devolutionary reform in Australian education systems has a long history. The genealogy of these changes can be traced back to the 1970s (MacDonald et al., 2021) and reflects a significant shift from centralized decision-making to increased school autonomy. However, as education scholars have long noted (Lingard & Rizvi, 2006), the concept of devolution has been a fluid and contested one.

Devolution policy in Australia in an era of new public management

An important difference in understanding approaches to devolution is between the social democratic tradition of the 1970s (epitomised in the 1973 Karmel Report, ‘Schools in Australia’) and New Public Management (NPM) models. The Karmel Report argued for enhanced decision-making at a local level in a manner that more readily addressed the specific needs of students, the community and teachers. The NPM model suggested devolution could help drive greater efficiency and effectiveness in the school system by encouraging self-management of schools, controlled centrally by greater accountability requirements.

The latter view became ascendant in the 1980s and has remained dominant for the last 30 years. Greater school autonomy has been delivered to areas of budgeting and staffing (the organisation and management work) as opposed to decisions around curriculum and assessment (learning and teaching). This is despite evidence from the OECD (2013) showing that this particular form of self-management within schools is proven to have little to no effect on improved student outcomes.

The establishment of the National Education Agreement and Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) in 2008, followed by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) in 2009, signalled that, rather than becoming more devolved, curriculum and assessment were in fact to become more centralised via national standards and accountability measures such as the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) test (Thompson, 2013). Here we have what Professors Bob Lingard and Fazal Rizvi have described as “the two arms of the same process of corporate managerialist reform”: devolution and centralisation (Lingard & Rizvi, 2006).

Devolution, principals and teachers

The effects of this policy ensemble have been investigated by a considerable body of research over an extended period of time. Looking at Australian states, we have seen the effects of increased teacher and principal workloads. In an article on this topic, we reported on teachers’ views of devolution-driven work changes associated with the Local Schools, Local Decisions (LSLD) package of school autonomy reforms in New South Wales (Fitzgerald et al., 2019). While increased school autonomy was consistently associated with work intensification, primarily in relation to ‘paperwork’ requirements, respondents noted other variations in workload pressures arising from the increased school differentiation facilitated by devolutionary policies. Although the overall experiences of increased workload remained consistent, distinct patterns of work intensification were evident, reflecting the working environment of a school’s level (primary or secondary), location and relative socio-educational advantage.

In another article, we reported on research that examined how 30 principals in two devolved Australian state settings, NSW and Western Australia, responded to the workload pressures associated with school autonomy (McGrath-Champ et al., 2019). Despite new leadership profiles tied to the leadership standard for principals (AITSL, 2014), the findings suggest that these school leaders were ill-equipped to support the local, school-level working conditions of teachers. Moreover, while principals valued the greater discretionary powers that came with school autonomy, the associated workload burden further compromised their support of, and work with, teachers who also faced work intensification. Notwithstanding this overarching finding, once more there were locational differences (between metropolitan, regional and rural schools) in how principals understood and responded to teachers’ changing working conditions.

A greater differentiation in the experiences of teachers and principals, both across school systems and within schools, has been a concerning outcome of devolutionary policies. This issue was explored in detail in an article that examined the ways in which the Independent Public School (IPS) initiative in WA drove new market dynamics within the state’s public school sector (Fitzgerald et al., 2018). Drawing on extensive interview data from two schools – one IPS and one non-IPS – we found that competition and choice associated with the devolutionary IPS program reinforced mechanisms of residualisation, marked by increasingly complex and disadvantaged student cohorts, particularly in non-IP schools. Nonetheless, teachers in both schools reported new pressures such that all teaching staff described significant dissatisfaction in their work.

Teachers’ dissatisfaction emanated not only from workload pressures but also from the fracturing of school-level working relations in devolved, ‘autonomous’ schools. This process was evident in WA’s IPS and NSW’s LSLD initiatives. In an article based on 31 school leader and teacher interviews, we encountered consistent criticism of the negative workload implications of the increased responsibility and accountability associated with LSLD (Gavin & Stacey, 2023). Despite the lack of clarity they experienced around their decision-making and accountability, principals appreciated their elevated importance and enhanced discretionary power. In contrast, teachers raised concerns that ‘local decisions’ about resource management in schools had become more opaque. Teachers noted, for example, that principals used their increased staffing autonomy to create extra leadership, rather than classroom teaching, positions. Moreover, while principals pointed to the managerial burden associated with their expanded hiring discretion, teachers perceived that selection processes were now more often shaped by nepotism than merit.

The real effects of devolution

There is no firm evidence that the way school autonomy has been implemented in Australia has improved student outcomes. Nor has it led to more equitable outcomes for students or staff – an issue we engaged with in an article collating contributions from school autonomy researchers around the world (Keddie et al., 2022). Instead, research, including our own, has raised real concerns that devolution and school autonomy has contributed to the inequities in our education systems. School autonomy in staffing and resource allocation poses risks for trust in the crucial working relations at a local school level and, as the level of bureaucracy and paperwork in schools has grown, has contributed to the unsustainable and increasingly complex workloads that teachers face. While LSLD may no longer be in place in NSW schools, revised structures of governance will require ongoing attention if they are to avoid the range of difficulties evident under previous autonomy models.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers

Fitzgerald, S., McGrath-Champ, S., Stacey, M., Wilson, R., & Gavin, M. (2019). Intensification of teachers’ work under devolution: A ‘tsunami’ of paperwork. Journal of Industrial Relations, 61(5), 613-636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185618801396

Fitzgerald, S., Stacey, M., McGrath-Champ, S., Parding, K., & Rainnie, A. (2018). Devolution, market dynamics and the Independent Public School initiative in Western Australia: ‘winning back’ what has been lost? Journal of Education Policy, 33(5), 662-681. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1412502

Gavin, M., & Stacey, M. (2023). Enacting autonomy reform in schools: the re-shaping of roles and relationships under Local Schools, Local Decisions. Journal of Educational Change 24 (501-523). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09455-5

Karmel, p., ( 1973) Schools in Australia: report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools

Commission. Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/1973-05/apo-nid29669.pdf

Keddie, A., MacDonald, K., Blackmore, J., Boyask, R., Fitzgerald, S., Gavin, M., Heffernan, D., Hursh, C., McGrath-Champ, P., Møller, E., O’Neill, Parding, Salokangas, Skerritt, Stacey, Thomson, Wilkins, Wilson, Wylie, & Yoon. (2022). What needs to happen for school autonomy to be mobilised to create more equitable public schools and systems of education? Australian Educational Researcher, online first. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00573-w

Lingard, B., & Rizvi, F. (2006). Theorising the ambiguities of devolution. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(1), 111-123. doi.org/10.1080/0159630920130108

MacDonald, K., Keddie, A., Blackmore, J., Mahoney, C., Wilkinson, J., Gobby, B., Niesche, R., & Eacott, S. (2021). School autonomy reform and social justice: a policy overview of Australian public education (1970s to present). Australian Educational Researcher, 50, 307-327. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13384-021-00482-4

McGrath-Champ, S., Stacey, M., Wilson, R., Fitzgerald, S., Rainnie, A., & Parding, K. (2019). Principals’ support for teachers’ working conditions in devolved school settings: Insights from two Australian States. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 47(4), 590-605. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217745879

OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful (Volume IV). https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2012-results-what-makes-a-school-successful-volume-iv_9789264201156-en

Thompson, G. (2013). NAPLAN, MySchool and Accountability: Teacher perceptions of the effects of testing. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 62-84.

Scott-Fitzgerald-et-al-JPL-18 Download

Teacher workload and intensifying demands

Rachel Wilson et al. provide insights into teachers’ work through research, including interviews, workshops and questionnaires. . .

It won’t be news to teachers, or anyone with family or friends who are teachers, that teachers work long hours under heavy and intensifying demands. However, some facts and figures speak loudly and help effect policy shifts to address the work challenges facing teachers in schools and related professional shortages.

Our research group focuses on teachers’ work. In this summary, we show how we collaborated with the NSW Teachers Federation to give teachers a voice about their workload through research, including a series of interviews, workshops and questionnaires.

We highlight here three important points. First, the almost universally high work hours of teachers across Australia which threaten our education system and democracy. Second, teachers report that workload has intensified in recent years, with a ‘tsunami’ of paperwork. A third, and important, point is that teachers are using strategies like triaging, to deal with rising and competing demands, and this has important implications for how teachers’ workload may impact upon students.

Unsurprising news – teachers have a heavy (and heavier!) workload

We reviewed Australian surveys of teachers’ work and workload across five states, covering a total sample of 48,741 Australian public-school teachers (Gavin et al., 2021). The surveys were conducted between 2014 and 2019 and all were ‘pre-COVID’, yet they show independently assessed, but consistently high, work hours (See Table 1). These statistics put Australian teachers in the ‘very high’ workload category, and many spend substantial ‘out-of-school’ hours working.

Although rising teacher workload, and teacher shortages, are a concern internationally, we also know, from international surveys, that Australian teachers work longer hours than the OECD average— almost 20% more (OECD, 2019).

Table 1: Teachers’ work hours from five state surveys.

	Total average hours per week (Primary, FT)	Total average hours per week (Secondary, FT)	Hours within total undertaking work activities at home or on the weekend
NSW	55	55	11
WA	53	53	10
Vic	52.8	53.2	11.5 hours for primary teachers. 13 hours for secondary
Tas	45.8	46.2	90% of primary teachers work 5 hours. 70% of secondary teachers work 3 hours
Qld	44	44	Teachers report spending between 1 and 7 hours ‘outside rostered duty time’, including weekends, each week

Source: State surveys (Gavin et al., 2021)

Significantly, the data in Table 1 are also consistent with three earlier government ‘Staff in Australia’s Schools’ surveys showing teachers had high and increasing work hours. These were conducted by the Australian Federal Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—carried out over 2006, 2010, and 2013—and show that the average total hours worked increased slightly for both primary and secondary teachers over these periods (McKenzie et al., 2014). International OECD data also shows growing work hours, with the average working week for Australian teachers having increased by 2.1 hours between 2014 and 2018 (OECD, 2019).

This clear increase in teachers’ work intensified still further during COVID, when many teachers became stretched to breaking point, as we highlighted in a further publication (Wilson et al., 2020).

A tsunami of paperwork and data

The now well-documented high, and increasing, workload of teachers has coincided with new government policies, increasing accountability and devolved responsibility for student outcomes and school performance to the school level. These policies brought heavy demands, data and paperwork. See the resounding voice of teachers on how this happened in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Teachers’ report on changes in their work 2013 to 2018 (McGrath-Champ et al., 2018)

Teachers described how this intensification felt via in-depth, qualitative research interviews. As early as 2015, teachers described experiencing an increased and unmanageable workload, manifest especially in piles of paperwork. As one teacher put it:

“the pile just grows and grows and grows and then, so then you start a new pile … I’ve got a pile on this side of my desk and then when that pile started to get too big there’s a new pile on that side. And now there’s a pile growing on my computer table as well. And it’s all of this paperwork that I have to get through.“

These ‘piles’ of increasing administrative, technological and data-based requirements were reported in increasing levels alongside so-called ‘autonomy’ initiatives which many teachers pointed out occurred when the central education department support services were cut. The tsunami of new administrative work was felt acutely in public schools because it occurred alongside diminished support, and increasing demands, as schools became more and more segregated, residualising some public schools catering to an ever-wider range and depth of student need.

Teachers now do triage

Importantly, the intensification of teachers’ work, primarily driven by increasing compliance, paperwork and datafication, has also decreased the proportion of time that teachers have available to focus on matters perceived as more core to the job of teaching.

Our survey data reveal that teachers—by and large— still retain their primary focus on matters directly related to working with students in teaching and learning. In other words, they have taken the work intensification burden upon their own shoulders, working faster, for longer hours, and in out-of-school hours, to protect the time they spend with students and retain professional integrity.

One of the strategies teachers are now compelled to use to protect their core work is triage. About two-thirds of participants in our interview study (Stacey et al., 2022) reported that because of expansion of demands, some tasks could not be completed satisfactorily; for these teachers, the impossibility of completing their work “properly” meant that decisions had to be made regarding “what to let go”. Just as in the emergency room where nurses triage, prioritising the most pressing, time-critical and needy cases, many teachers are having to prioritise particular aspects of their work.

As one participant described it, data collection and accountability requirements meant they were “too busy proving that I’m doing what I should be doing”. Another related how they “have to tell students ‘I’m sorry, I can’t talk now, I’ve got to go to a meeting’, and that’s not fair to my students. I’m paid to teach; I’m not paid to run off to meetings”.

As noted above, teachers’ work intensified still further during COVID-19 with complexity of work and administrative tasks being particularly demanding, as shown in Figure 2, which is drawn from a publication reporting on a separate workload survey we conducted (Wilson et al., 2020). Although lesson preparation time also increased, teachers asked for support through alleviating the administrative burden, not through having others undertake lesson planning.

Figure 2: Increases in work demands after the shift to remote teaching and learning due to COVID in 2020 (Wilson et al., 2020)

The research data on teachers’ work, from a range of sources, including international and government reports, as well as from independent academic researchers like our team, clearly shows increasing demands on teachers that threaten important teaching work with students and educational productivity. In addition, teachers in our studies attributed these new demands largely to government policies, as we highlight in Stacey et al. (2023). If trends persist these will have knock-on effects to the economy, and egalitarian and democratic values.

Fixing the evolving teacher workload problem

COVID-19 pushed many teachers toward the brink, and since then a range of factors have conspired, producing national and international teacher shortages which are at once both a response to, and exacerbate, increasing teacher workload. Although recent policy shifts are attempting to address these matters, ongoing analysis will be required to ensure that teachers are effectively supported in the valuable work they do.

Gavin, M; McGrath – Champ, S; Wilson, R; Fitzgerald, S & Stacey, M (2021) Teacher workload in Australia; National reports of Intensification and its threat to democracy. In S. Riddle, A. Heffernan, & D. Bright (Eds.), New perspectives on education for democracy: Creative Responses to Local and Global Challenges (pp. 110-123). Routledge.

McGrath-Champ, S., Wilson, R., Stacey, M., & Fitzgerald, S. (2018). Understanding work in schools. https://www.nswtf.org.au/files/18438_uwis_digital.pdf

McKenzie, P., Weldon, P., Rowley, G., Murphy, M., & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in Australia’s schools 2013: Main report on the survey. https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/20/

OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results: Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners, Volume 1. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/education/talis-2018-results-volume-i-1d0bc92a-en.htm

Stacey, M., McGrath-Champ, S. & Wilson, R. (2023). Teacher attributions of workload increase in public sector schools: Reflections on change and policy development. Journal of Educational Change, online first. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10833-022-09476-0

Stacey, M., Wilson, R., & McGrath-Champ, S. (2022). Triage in teaching: the nature and impact of workload in schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 42(4), 772-785. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1777938

Wilson, R., Stacey, M., & McGrath-Champ, S. (2020). Teachers’ work during the COVID-19 pandemic: Shifts, challenges and opportunities. Centre for Strategic Education, 169.

Rachel-Wilson-et-al-JPL-18 Download

Mary Ryan, et al share the outcomes and benefits of co-designed professional learning between education researchers and classroom teachers. . .

Key ingredients of effective Professional Learning

How can a reflexivity process help us make the most of professional learning?

Features of Co-designed Professional Learning

Outcomes of co-designed professional learning

Where to get research support?

References

About the Authors

In a world of rapidly advancing Artificial Intelligence, Leslie Loble and Kelly Stephens provide teachers with a framework of questioning when making decisions on using edtech to enhance teaching and learning. . .

Five Key Questions to Consider

1.Which tool or resource should I choose?

2.(How) Does this app help me understand more about my students’ learning?

3.(How) does this application help me teach the full range of students in my classroom?

4.What type of AI does this application include?

5.What data or information should I put into an app?

Conclusion

Endnotes

References

About the Authors

Geoff Gallop challenges us to commit to the aspirational goals of ‘excellence’ and ‘equity’ in education in a world of meritocratic hubris. . .

Sahlberg and Cobbold

Fairness and Public Policy

Do Schools Matter?

A Meritocracy?

Strengths of Government Schools

Definition, measurement and reporting

Endnotes

References

About the Author

The recent introduction of a new syllabus spurred this English Faculty to build and embed trust, transparency, and collaboration as the drivers of a cohesive and effective staffroom. Amy Peace and Louise Turk take us through the processes…

How To Build A Harmonious And Productive Workplace Culture

References

About the authors

Overview

Session details

Course dates and venue

Fee

Presenters

Target Participants

Overview

Course Dates and Venue

Presenter

Target Participants

Fee

Delivery

Overview

Course Dates and Venue

Presenter

Dr Rose Dixon

Target Participants

Fee

Delivery

Endnote

References

About the authors

Scott Fitzgerald et al. reflect on the shift from centralised decision-making to increased school autonomy and the resultant impact on teachers and principals . . .

Devolution policy in Australia in an era of new public management

Devolution, principals and teachers

The real effects of devolution

References

About the authors

Rachel Wilson et al. provide insights into teachers’ work through research, including interviews, workshops and questionnaires. . .

Unsurprising news – teachers have a heavy (and heavier!) workload

A tsunami of paperwork and data

Teachers now do triage

Fixing the evolving teacher workload problem

References

About the authors

Share this page

5.What data or information should I put into an app?