Skip to content

Join Today

Member portal

NSW Teachers Federation
NSW Teachers Federation
  • Home
  • Courses
    • All Courses
    • All Conferences
    • Primary
    • Secondary
  • Journal
    • Journal Issue
    • For your Classroom
    • For your Staffroom
    • For your Future
    • For your Research
  • Podcast
  • About
    • Who we are
    • What we do
    • Our Presenters
    • FAQ
    • Contact Us
NSW Teachers Federation
  • Home
  • Courses
    • All Courses
    • All Conferences
    • Primary
    • Secondary
  • Journal
    • Journal Issue
    • For your Classroom
    • For your Staffroom
    • For your Future
    • For your Research
  • Podcast
  • About
    • Who we are
    • What we do
    • Our Presenters
    • FAQ
    • Contact Us

Subject: Whole school priorities

Growing a culture of assessment for learning in the secondary context

Lisa Edwards explores how we can shift school-wide assessment practice and create a culture focussed on learning for both teachers and students . . .

As teachers, we know that assessment of, for and as learning is happening every day, in every classroom. We know that it occurs through the questions we ask; the answers we elicit, in both writing and through discussion; in the conversations we facilitate between students; in the self- and peer-assessment opportunities we provide; in more formal tasks; and in the ways that we record the evidence of learning following these formal and informal assessments. We know that in best practice, the feedback we provide to students through this varied assessment is designed to advance the learning of our students, and that the feedback we gain through our assessment drives improvements to our teaching, as we tailor learning experiences based on what the evidence tells us that our students need.

Yet, despite our best intentions, in many secondary contexts a continuing focus (conscious or otherwise) on formal, summative assessment can overshadow the value of both this continuous formative assessment, and of feedback, particularly in the eyes of our students. In many high schools, if we asked our students to tell us about assessment connected to their learning, it’s likely the majority would talk about formal tasks and tests, exams and assignments. They’d talk about HSC exams, NAPLAN, check-in, assessment tasks and schedules, weightings, marks and grades.

The research has indicated for a long time that providing marks and grades has the potential to detract from student engagement with more detailed constructive feedback and can have a detrimental impact on learner motivation and self-efficacy. It de-motivates low performing students and can foster complacency in high achievers (Black and Wiliam, 1998a). When a grade is present, students are less likely to heed written or verbal feedback. “A marked improvement? A review of the evidence on written marking” from Oxford University (Elliot et. al, 2016) is an excellent recent review of the literature on this topic.

The big question school leaders face is how can we shift school-wide assessment practice, and perceptions of assessment, and create a culture focused on learning across the school – for teachers and students?

The importance of a growth mindset

Before digging deeper into assessment, let’s consider the mindset that our students need to become adaptive learners who engage with our feedback to improve. Carol Dweck’s (2006) mindset research remains highly relevant in our schools, almost 20 years later. Dweck found that 40% of students believe their ability is fixed; they believe that either they can do it or not and will give up when encountering difficulty. Another 40% understand that learning requires time and effort; these students try harder in the face of difficulty – our growth mindset students. The remainder sits in the middle. So, for about 60% of our students, we have work to do on mindset.

There is certainly hope – Dweck’s work showed that the growth mindset can be cultivated. Yet in many cases the fixed mindset prevails. How many times have we heard, “I just can’t do Maths,” or “My essays are never going to be better than a C,” or “Why would I bother trying when I know I am going to fail? Or just get another D?”

The good news is that as an educational community, we continue to strive towards growth – our collegial dialogue continues to explore the problem of these fixed mindsets. How can we encourage all students to see the value in effort and practice? How do we ensure that students use our feedback to improve? How can we develop students who take responsibility for their learning, as well as building self-efficacy and resilience?

Yet even as we attempt to solve these problems, in many schools we retain assessment practices that hinder a growth mindset. Yes, we have system requirements to be adhered to for assessment in Stage 6, but we have much more flexibility to develop growth-oriented practices to lay the foundations and create self-motivated learners in Stages 4 and 5. Some practices we continue to see that undermine our best efforts towards a growth culture include:

  • Summative assessment driven HSC-style assessment schedules and tasks from Stage 6 right down to Stage 4
  • Teaching and learning programs that emphasise content without planning the evidence of learning to be collected.
  • A lack of clarity about the purpose of learning and what success looks like for students.
  • Feedback that is not explicit and task-oriented, which students ignore or don’t engage with, particularly when there’s a mark or a grade on the page.
  • Missed opportunities to teach meaningful self- and peer-assessment.
  • A lack of time and metacognitive support for students to understand themselves as learners and set meaningful and individualised learning goals.
  • School reports that still emphasise grades (and in many cases marks and ranks – imagine coming last in the class or year in Year 7 or 8 – what would be the impact on motivation for that student moving forward?)

The “image” of the student

Professor Jim Tognolini, Director of the University of Sydney’s Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment (CEMA), defines assessment as follows:

“Assessment involves professional judgement based upon an image formed by the collection of information about student performance.” (Tognolini & Stanley, 2007).

“… that professional judgement is owned on a day-to-day basis by teachers… Central to the way that teachers assess is the idea of building up an image of what it is students know and can do. It is this image in a standards-referencing system that is used by teachers to build evidence to “track” and report student progress along a developmental continuum.” (Tognolini, 2020)

Not only does Tognolini’s definition emphasise that we are assessing formally and informally in every lesson, but it also empowers teachers by underscoring the importance of teacher professional judgement.

I highly recommend listening to The CPL’s podcast with Professor Tognolini “The Teacher’s Voice in Educational Assessment”  which emphasises the importance of teachers having confidence in their own professional judgement about assessing their students’ development (in relation to grade and performance descriptors provided by our system). The important role of the school community and its leaders in this is to collaborate with, and support, teachers to exercise their professional judgment.

This approach to assessment is also an important reminder that when reporting on student achievement, we need to recognise that a student might have demonstrated achievement of an outcome in class discussion, or in a class-based task or activity. Summative assessment should not be the sole source of information about student achievement – and particularly not in Stages 4 and 5. It is just one of many sources of information teachers should be using to create the “image” of the student, which is then reported to parents (and students).

Vitally, to shift away from a culture that values only marks and grades, this view of assessment supports students to understand that every piece of learning matters; every activity and task matters and is an opportunity to improve, and they are not just being assessed on three or four key summative tasks over the course of a year.

What does assessment look like in a growth culture?

Black and Wiliam’s (2009) research into formative assessment and feedback remains a staple of best practice. Their work emphasises clear learning intentions and success criteria, classroom activities designed to elicit evidence of learning, quality feedback, peer learning and assessment, and self-assessment. Wiliam’s Embedded Formative Assessment (2018) is rich in practical application and Lyn Sharratt’s Clarity is another useful and accessible text for teachers and school leaders regarding assessment planning across the school, where assessment informs instruction. There are, of course, many other excellent resources on assessment practice, and in the next section, I provide some ideas and strategies drawn from a range of research to develop a growth culture in my classroom, faculty, and across the school.

1.Learning intentions: A roadmap for learning

Clear learning intentions should be connected to syllabus outcomes and describe (in student-friendly language) what students should know, understand, and be able to do.

This doesn’t mean every lesson needs a learning intention (though many schools have gone in this direction, and that can be helpful). Structured unit outlines can set up learning powerfully, with higher order driving questions and a clear expectation that assessment is continuous and all learning matters, thus providing a roadmap for students’ learning. This is a unit outline I created for English. The structure can be adapted for different courses – what’s important is that we share with students where we are going with the unit, and what they are going to be learning.

It is vital for students to understand what they are learning, and why. Clarity in all stages of learning and assessment is one of the keys to growth.

2.Success criteria

Quality success criteria describe what success looks like in relation to the learning intentions. Some of the best success criteria are those that are co-developed by students and teachers, and remember, success criteria are not just for formal tasks.

Checklists for success, detailed rubrics, models and scaffolds, annotated models, annotated student work samples demonstrating high/mid/low levels, and co-developed criteria are all examples of success criteria – showing students clearly what is expected. Explaining the difference between a high and middle sample in explicit terms can be very powerful in increasing student understanding.

One of my favourite strategies for modelling success is to use descriptive rubrics. I like to use progression terms that DON’T align to the common five grade structure, as a small step away from student focus on grades, and language that fosters growth. Once familiar with them, students can be supported to use rubrics for self- and peer-assessment. I have also found that rubrics enable parents to understand expectations and support their children at home. Moving away from grades to rubrics like the one below can be a powerful enabler for students to understand their current level, and where they need to head next. This is an example that I have used in English, but again, rubrics can be developed across KLAs, and for different types of tasks.

3.Explicit descriptive feedback

“Feedback is only successful if students use it to improve their performance.” (Wiliam, 2016)

Therefore, central to our provision of feedback is teaching students how to engage with it, and providing the time for them to do so. Whether written or verbal, you have taken time to provide feedback to students. In order for students to recognise its value, it is vital we incorporate feedback into class time.

Quality feedback involves reciprocal dialogue. Where am I going? How am I going? Where to next and how to get there? Provide feedback on what the student did well, what they need to focus on, and next steps.

Teacher feedback should be specific and descriptive. Avoid ego-based praise – focus on the task. When you wrote THIS, it was effective because… To keep improving, do THIS.

Frame lessons around one or two deep questions. Think-pair-share and provide task-oriented verbal feedback on student responses. Don’t just say, “Good answer,” but tell them why it is was good and prompt further thinking. “Did you consider…?”

“Avoid grading.  Grades are consistently found to demotivate low attainers.  They also fail to challenge high attainers, often making them complacent. So avoid giving a grade or mark except where absolutely necessary. It is rarely necessary, and almost never desirable, to grade every piece of work.” (Black and Wiliam, 1998b)

Importantly, the feedback that assessment provides to teachers about student learning must now be used to plan future learning. “Assessment becomes formative assessment when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching work to meet the needs.” (Black and Wiliam, 1998a)

4.Peer- and self-assessment

“The amount of feedback we can give our students is limited. In the longer term, the most productive strategy is to develop our students’ ability to give themselves feedback.” (Wiliam, 2016)

Peer- and self-assessment fall into NESA’s “Assessment as learning” category. As with feedback, teaching students to peer- and self-assess requires time – but it is time well spent in the long term. Wiliam’s “The Secret of Effective Feedback” (2016) is a useful article to use with teachers, and contains a range of practical tips that are applicable across the curriculum.

Wiliam recommends starting students in assessing anonymous student work: what feedback would you give the creator, based on the criteria we’ve developed together? Then, move onto the work of peers, and finally, self-assessment. Not only is this strategy useful to develop the metacognition and self-assessment skills of individual students but having a team of critical friends providing constructive feedback to each other is a powerful tool for teachers to build collective efficacy. As trust and skill develop, this strategy can strengthen the achievement of the whole group.

Some specific and creative self- and peer-assessment strategies, courtesy of Dylan Wiliam include:

  • Self-marking – students mark their own piece using the criteria and teacher comments prior to receiving back the task and grade – indicate performance against criteria/rubric and add comments.
  • Task/criteria matching – for extended responses – small groups (3-4 students) are given responses with completed criteria but they are mixed up. They must match the criteria to the response.
  • Tell students how many of their answers on a task are incorrect and ask them to figure out the incorrect responses – this is a great one for Maths, Science, or any multiple choice tests.
  • Teacher provides verbal recorded feedback instead of written – students to annotate their work as they listen.
  • Give comments only and students are required to reflect on what they did well, what they need to improve, and their next step learning goals BEFORE a mark or grade is given.

Other simple peer- and self-feedback ideas:

  • Two stars and a wish – identify two positives and an area for improvement.
  • Plus, minus, interesting – a positive, something to work on, and something that makes you think.
  • Colour coding – highlight elements of own or peer’s writing in different colours eg key concepts in yellow, supporting evidence in green, evaluation in pink
  • Traffic lights – use green, amber and red cards for students to provide feedback to teachers about their understanding.
  • Checklists – what do students need to include to meet the criteria? Have you included all of these elements? Checklists can be co-created with students.
  • What would I change to improve my work? – after reflecting on feedback.

5.Goal-setting and planning learning

The next step in quality assessment as learning practice is to guide students to reflect on their learning and achievement and to set goals for future learning. Again, growth-oriented schools will prioritise processes and TIME for student self-reflection, before rushing into the next content. Essentially, by providing this time and guidance, we are valuing growth skills over content. This means we are teaching students to be better learners, not just delivering content. In many cases, this involves a shift in mindset for teachers.

Some guided reflection questions:

  • How did your self-assessment compare to your teacher’s feedback? Did you identify similar or different strengths and areas for focus?
  • What did you do well and why do you think you did well with this?
  • What did you not do as well and why?
  • What questions do you have?
  • What specifically do you need to improve in the next learning phase? Identify three key focuses for improvement.
  • Identify three specific learning goals from this reflection.

Similarly, teachers must use their assessment to plan the next phase of learning. What skills have most students achieved? What areas need further development? What differentiation needs to occur to cater to the differences in student need, as evidenced by the data you have collected and the “images” of your students?

How, then, do we report on student achievement, if not based solely on summative tasks?

Using this range of formative assessment and feedback strategies with students does not preclude us from reporting outcomes on the required five-point scale. It does mean that instead of basing our reporting on a small number of summative tasks, we are using a broad range of evidence collected over a semester or year, which has created the “image” of our student, to make a professional judgement of our students’ achievements against each of the outcomes. The professional dialogue created during the standard setting of alignment to the common grade scale or course performance descriptors between teachers of a cohort is in itself powerful learning for us.

Finally, we need to be creative (and brave) in our reporting. An overall A-E grade is not required. We can use the five descriptive word equivalents of A-E grades to report on each outcome, based on the range of evidence we have collected: outstanding, high, sound, basic and limited. We certainly don’t need marks and ranks. If parents request information about their child’s achievement in relation to the cohort, we can provide them with the number of students in each grade category. We need to educate students and parents about the rationale behind our reporting.

Of course, shifting culture is a challenging process, which will not happen overnight. Students need to see their teachers prioritising this practice right across the school, which requires commitment and consistency. I have found that professional learning communities engaged in a form of reflective action learning can be a successful way to learn together, put theory into practice, reflect on our impact and thus refine our practice together. Hargreaves and O’Connor’s (2018) Collaborative Professionalism is a fantastic resource to explore strategies for collaborative professional learning in teams or school-wide. But, starting small is also ok. A faculty, or team, can find success, which can gain momentum and be shared across the school.

Improving assessment for learning starts with a seed of intent – to refine our practice with student learning at the centre. With emphasis on evidence-informed formative assessment practice, that seed of intent can grow into a rich school – wide culture of quality assessment for learning. A culture in which teacher and student focus is not driven by formal, summative assessment, nor by marks and grades (as is so often the case in the secondary context), but by a positive mindset of growth and improvement, where every activity is valued as an opportunity to learn.

Black, P. (2016) ‘The role of assessment in pedagogy – and why validity matters’ in D Wyse, L. Hayward, & J Pandya (eds), Sage handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, vol. 2, pp. 725–739, Sage, London.

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998a) (reprinted 2014 with updates) Inside the Black Box, VIC:Hawker Brownlow Education.

Black and Wiliam (1998b) “Assessment and Classroom Learning” in Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, vol 5, issue 1.

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (2009) ‘Developing the theory of formative assessment’, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, vol. 21, no. 1, pp 5-31.

Elliott, V., Baird, J., Hopfenbeck, T., Ingram, J., Thompson, I., Usher & Zantout, M., (2016) A marked improvement? A review of the evidence on written marking Oxford

“A marked improvement? A review of the evidence on written marking

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Hargreaves, A. and O’Connor, M. (2018) Collaborative Professionalism. Corwin.

Sharratt, L., (2019) Clarity. What Matters MOST in Learning, Teaching, and Leading. Corwin.

Tognolini, J., (2020) “The Beginning of a Journey to Assessment and Data Literacy for Teachers” The Journal of Professional Learning

Tognolini, J., & Stanley, G., (2007) “Standards-Based Assessment: A Tool and Means to the Development of Human Capital and Capacity Building in Education” Australian Journal of Education

Tognolini, J., (2022) CPL podcast  “The Teacher’s Voice in Educational Assessment” https://cpl.nswtf.org.au/podcasts/the-teachers-voice-in-educational-assessment/

Wiliam, D. (2018) Embedded formative assessment. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.Wiliam, D. (2016) ‘The Secret of Effective Feedback’ Educational Leadership, April 2016, Vol 73

Lisa Edwards is a school leader passionate about the potential of public education to change lives.

With over 20 years of experience with the NSW Department of Education, working in schools in Sydney’s south and southwest, Lisa is an English teacher by training, and at heart. Her leadership journey has included the roles of Head Teacher Wellbeing, Head Teacher English, and Deputy Principal. She has developed resources and presented on assessment, pedagogy and programming, working in collaboration with the Department’s secondary curriculum team, and has published and presented for the NSW English Teachers’ Association. Lisa received an Australian Council for Educational Leaders award and a Premier’s Award for Public Service for her work leading improvement in literacy and HSC achievement, and currently presents for the NSW Teachers’ Federation’s Centre for Professional Learning on leading lifting achievement and quality assessment practice.

Lisa is a strong advocate for public education and educational equity, dedicated to supporting teachers in public schools to maximise learning outcomes and, therefore, opportunities for our students. 

Lisa-Edwards-JPL-18-1Download

Supported Students Means Supported Teachers

Emma Bruce provides a special education teacher’s insight on working with students with a disability. . .

As teachers of all students in many varied settings, we have a responsibility to meet the individual needs of each of those students. This responsibility, however, does not fall on our shoulders alone.

As teachers are the everyday point of contact between students and their education, it can often feel that we shoulder the immense weight of this responsibility ourselves. It is understandable to feel that way, especially when one is looking into the eyes of a student who needs support. It is time to consider, however, that it is not just students who need support to ensure that their needs are met. Support for students does not end at the classroom door. Supported students means supported teachers.

1. Teaching students with disability – A meaningful experience

The importance of a high-quality education for any student cannot be overstated. For those with disability it can (among other important provisions and developments): provide opportunities to develop fundamental life skills; build important social connections; and to learn, and express, self-determination. The key to this is the provision of meaningful learning experiences and support that allows our students to engage fully with those learning experiences.

As a teacher of any student, but particularly in the case of teaching students with disability, it is important to consider how their whole learning environment enables them to fully participate in all aspects of learning. This does not mean that a teacher of students with disability, therefore, becomes wholly responsible for that learning environment. That would be impossible. There are, however, actions that we can take as their most readily available point of contact.

As a teacher of students with disability, I consider this an immense responsibility and an immense privilege. My practice has improved through the development of my capacity to ensure that my content delivery and instruction caters to the needs of these students. In doing this, I hold the belief that my small steps will lead to those students taking much larger positive steps in their lives. So, while I focus on making their learning experiences meaningful to them, the experience of teaching these amazing people is also immensely meaningful for me.

2. Meet them where they are – Personalised Learning, Collaboration and Positive Relationships

At the heart of the provision of meaningful learning experiences for our students is the knowledge of what our students need to fully engage with their learning. A clear understanding of learning adjustments, or environmental accommodations, that can be made to support a student with disability engaging with their learning on the same basis as students without disability is imperative. Of equal importance is an understanding of our students as individuals with varying interests and aspirations.

Teachers equipped with knowledge of a student’s disability and potential strategies to support them are more able to encourage meaningful engagement with learning activities. Teachers equipped with this knowledge and an understanding of their students’ interests will be able to respond more readily to opportunities for the provision of richer learning experiences. A combination of both will open the door, and provide opportunities, for these students to express themselves, build relationships and engage more wholly with their learning.

In many cases, these opportunities may not present themselves unless they are actively sought and encouraged. For example, I once knew a student who was assessed as needing support to learn to communicate choices. It was believed that this student was unable to do so independently. That student’s teacher spoke with their parents, who shared the student’s love for a popular character in a children’s movie. The teacher incorporated objects and images that represented that character into some of the student’s activities throughout the day. The student began to independently display choice-making behaviours and to engage with learning activities focussing on particular augmented communication strategies in order to communicate those choices. Once the student was able to use these skills in activities that included the popular character, they began to generalise these skills to communicate their needs and wants during other activities. The door was opened, and that student flourished.

In light of the need to understand these students as individuals, it is important to collaborate with those who have significant knowledge and understanding of them as individuals. While we as teachers have an important role to play in their development at school, we can gain a wealth of knowledge from those who interact with them beyond the classroom.  Under the Disability Discrimination Act, 1992 1 via the Disability Standards for Education, 20052 there is a legislated requirement to consult the student, or their associates, before making an adjustment3 to assist the student . Often this will be the student’s parent(s)/carer(s)/family but may also involve other agencies and/or professionals supporting the student.

Embracing and facilitating opportunities for effective and meaningful collaboration on the pathway taken by a student with disability in their learning is a mutually valuable undertaking. Such effective collaboration can improve the student’s learning and engagement; positively impact on our practice as teachers; as well as support the well-being of the student’s family (through the establishment of positive working relationships between the school and home).

The NSW Education Standards Authority( NESA) has helpful information on students with disability. It is especially useful for those seeking to better understand the collaborative planning approach to supporting students with disability.

3. Don’t do it alone – access expertise and resources, and build collegial links

Meeting the needs of a student with disability can be a complex and challenging task. Simultaneously meeting the varied needs of multiple students with disability can be much more so. The responsibility for this, however, does not sit squarely on the shoulders of the classroom teacher. It is important for teachers to know where to turn for support and further information.

Who to contact:

Those listed below may be available in your school. Contact details of those who work outside of the school can be found on the Department portal.

The Department has information available on the roles of many of those available to support here

Supervisors – Your supervisor is often your first port of call for matters to do with classroom management and professional development. This includes matters to do with the support of students with disability in your classroom. They can provide advice and liaise with other appropriate support staff. This includes the Principal, LaSTs, LST, SLSOs, School Counsellors, Assistant Principals Learning and Support (APLaS) and/or Learning Wellbeing Advisors (LWAs)/ Learning Wellbeing Officers (LWOs) as needed within the specific circumstances.

Learning and Support Teachers (LaSTs) – a role description is available from the Department here. While LaSTs’ roles vary to meet the varying needs of their schools, the role description clearly outlines the expectations on how that role is to be fulfilled to support students with disability and their teachers. It is important to note that, according to this role description, provided by the Department, “In undertaking their work the Learning and Support Teacher will not be used to provide relief for teachers/executive or to establish a separate class.”

Your Principal – Your Principal has a vested interest in supporting Students with Disability (SWD) in the school. They can provide advice and liaise with other appropriate support staff. This includes the Principal, LaSTs, LST, SLSOs, School counsellors, APLaS and/or LWAs/LWOs as needed within the specific circumstances.

The Learning and Support Team (LST) – The composition of LSTs varies in schools depending on the local needs of the school. Often, they will include the Principal, School Counsellors (if available) and LaSTs. The role of the LST is to support SWD by facilitating whole-school approaches to improving their engagement and learning outcomes, coordinating planning processes and developing collaborative partnerships with the school, parents and wider school community.

Other colleagues – Teaching is a collaborative profession, and our colleagues can provide a wealth of information and support. I have often said that some of my best professional learning occurred in the staffroom via conversations with my colleagues. If you are comfortable doing so, reach out to your colleagues for advice.

Local and/or relevant specialist teachers (such as English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EALD) teachers as well as those in specialist settings). Reaching out to these teachers will help to extend your network and build collegial links outside of your school.

School Learning Support Officers (SLSOs) – Their role is to support teachers, while working under their direction and supervision, to implement programs that support SWD. They often provide assistance with school routines, classroom activities and the care of students.

Assistant Principal Learning and Support (APLaS) – A role description is available from the Department here.

School Support contacts –Can be contacted by your school, to provide the following:

  • Learning and Wellbeing Coordinator (LWC) – Coordination of services, programs and initiatives supporting students with diverse needs, including those with disability
  • Learning and Wellbeing Advisors (LWA) – Engages with local schools to plan and implement strategies to support student wellbeing, including those with disability.
  • Learning and Wellbeing Officers (LWO) – Point of contact for Principals and schools for wellbeing matters.

School Counsellors (if available)

Consider accessing resources to further enhance your understanding
  • Resources, policies and procedures available in the Department portal, especially those relating to student wellbeing, education of students with disability and Work Health and Safety
  • Resources and professional development opportunities provided by NSW Teachers Federation through the Federation Library, Trade Union Training (TUT) and the Centre for Professional Learning (CPL). These courses also provide ample opportunity to extend your networks as mentioned above.

Click the links below for information on each section of the Federation’s website. Members will need to log in to access the links. Further information can be found in the Knowledge Centre of the Member Portal.

  • The Library Catalogue.
  • Useful Library links
  • Trade Union Training
  • Centre for Professional Learning

4. Enjoy it – reflect on your practice and learn alongside your students

While teaching students with disability can be challenging, and meeting their needs can be complex, it can also be one of the most rewarding endeavours you can undertake as a teacher.  

In my ten years as a teacher at a School for Specific Purposes (SSP), I considered it a personal and professional privilege to learn so much alongside the individuals I taught and the colleagues with whom I worked.

At every social event there would come the question “What do you do?” I was always proud to say that I teach students with disabilities. The reactions of different people to that answer were often thought provoking. The ones I would receive most often were protestations of “That’s so wonderful, I could never do that,” “You must be so patient,” “It must be so difficult.”

 At the beginning of my career, I would often just accept these responses and move the conversation on. There was something that just didn’t sit quite right with that, but I was unsure of what it was. Once I realised, I began to respond differently. I wanted to flip the narrative of those conversations from “it takes a great teacher to teach students with disability” to “teaching my students makes me a better teacher.” Because it did.

The processes, strategies and systems that are needed in order to meet the needs of students with disability will challenge you in ways that you cannot foresee. It requires honest reflection on your approaches to education, guided by an understanding of the student as an individual, and implemented within the broader scope of the whole class, the whole school and the public education system. Part of this reflection will require an understanding of your role within that system, your ability to change it or, when necessary, work within it. It is also important to recognise your ability to combine your knowledge and practice with the resources available to you (including support from outside the classroom door) and to bring everything together for each moment that is so vitally important for each student. While there is undeniable complexity in meeting the needs of these students, there is also substantial joy in helping them to achieve their goals. 

In developing your ability to cater for the needs of students with disability, you will simultaneously build your capacity to meet the needs of all students in your charge, in whichever setting type you find yourself. The strategies and practices that help students with disability are of immense value to all students.

1.  The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) is federal legislation that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in Australia. The DDA makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person in many areas of public life including employment, education, housing and accessing public places.

2 The Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE) outlines the obligations of education providers, such as the Department of Education, under the DDA. The main premise of the DSE is to ensure that students with disability are able to access and participate in education on the same basis as students without disability

3 An adjustment is defined in section 3.3 of the DSE as a measure or action (or group of measures or actions) taken by an education provider that has the effect of assisting a student with a disability:

 (i)    in relation to an admission or enrolment — to apply for the admission or enrolment; and

(ii)    in relation to a course or program — to participate in the course or program; and

(iii)    in relation to facilities or services — to use the facilities or services; on the same basis as a student without a disability, and includes an aid, a facility, or a service that the student requires because of his or her disability;

Centre for Professional Learning (CPL) website https://cpl.nswtf.org.au/

Department of Education (DoE) website – Disability Learning and Support, Roles and Responsibilities Roles and responsibilities (nsw.gov.au)

Department of Education (DoE) website – Role of the Learning and Support Teacher Role of the Learning and Support Teacher (nsw.gov.au)

Department of Education (DoE) website – Roles of the Assistant Principal Learning and Support Role of the Assistant Principal Learning and Support (nsw.gov.au)

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Cth)

NSW Education Standards Authority ( NESA) website – Collaborative Curriculum Planning https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/diversity-in-learning/special-education/collaborative-curriculum-planning

NSW Education Standards Authority ( NESA) website Students with disability

NSW Teachers Federation website https://www.nswtf.org.au/

NSW Teachers Federation website Trade Union Training https://www.nswtf.org.au/courses/?type=TUT

NSW Teachers Federation library catalogue LIBERO WebOPAC Search Simple (W501) (nswtf.org.au)

Emma Bruce was elected as a NSW Teachers Federation Organiser in September, 2022. As part of this role, she is also the Officer with carriage of matters related to students with disability.

Emma is a teacher of students with disability who began teaching in 2011 in Western Sydney, predominately at a large SSP where she has taught for 10 years. She has held the roles of Federation Representative, Women’s Contact and Assistant Principal. She was a Councillor and Special Education Contact of the Parramatta Teachers Association.

Emma was a Federation Project Officer and Relief Officer prior to her election as City Organiser in 2022.

Emma-Bruce-JPL-18Download

Do Not Try This Alone: The Importance of a Professional Learning Collective

Professor Tony Loughland and Professor Mary Ryan explain why teacher collective efficacy is a vital part of their professional learning and how its use influences students’ learning and development…

Do Not Try This Alone

When Tony and Mary started their teaching careers last century there were many lone ranger teachers in the schools where they worked. These lone rangers were often very good practitioners who preferred to work their magic in their own classroom. You didn’t often see them in the staffroom but their students were happy, the parents did not complain and the school executive were generally of the view that “if it ain’t broke it don’t need fixing”.  

There were also teachers and executive staff back then who were very generous in the sharing of their practical wisdom. This generosity was much appreciated by Tony who struggled to teach students with English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D) backgrounds in inner city Sydney, especially given he had just completed six semesters of enthusiastic and expert teaching of the whole language model of teaching English K-6 in his pre-service education degree.  

The collegiality of these colleagues extended to observing them in class, team teaching, sharing programs and resources, affirmation of our small wins as novice teachers and generally making us feel like we might succeed at this profession one day. Their collegiality gave us an enhanced sense of our efficacy as an individual teacher and promulgated a general sense of collective efficacy that we can teach these students well in our school.  

There is strong support in the research literature that students thrive when teachers have a positive sense of their self-efficacy as individual teachers as well as a strong sense of their collective efficacy as a stage, faculty, team and school. We argue in this paper that the motivational sources of collective teacher efficacy provide a useful framework for the development and evaluation of professional learning programs at the school level.  

The Compelling Evidence for Pursuing Collective Teacher Efficacy

Teachers’ sense of their collective efficacy is the second most important school-based influence on student outcomes. It has an effect size of 1.57 on student achievement according to Hattie’s synthesis of 1200 meta-analyses relating to influences on student achievement (Hattie, 2015).  An effect size of this magnitude demands the attention of school leaders and researchers invested in teacher professional learning, “Given the link between collective efficacy and student achievement, understanding collective efficacy in and of itself is a worthy endeavour” (Berebitsky & Salloum, 2017, p.2). This study sought to develop an in-depth understanding of the antecedents of teacher collective efficacy in their professional learning.  

Collective efficacy is an extension of the construct of self-efficacy from the broader theoretical framework of social cognition. Collective efficacy is defined as “the extent to which people believe they can work together effectively to accomplish their shared goals” (Maddux & Gosselin, 2012, p.214).  Social cognition assumes reciprocal causality exists between a person and their environment, “people respond cognitively, emotionally, and behaviourally to environmental events. Also, through cognition people can exercise control over their own behaviour, which then influences not only the environment but also their cognitive, emotional, and biological states” (Maddux & Gosselin, 2012, p.199). This reciprocal causality has positive implications for teacher collective efficacy as it creates a virtuous cycle of improvement where enhanced collective efficacy contributes to student achievement which then further strengthens collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2000). 

The motivational sources of teacher collective efficacy are mastery and vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and affective states.1 Teacher collective efficacy is also enhanced by a team’s ability to analyse the task ahead and make a judgment on their current level of competency to complete the task. All these characteristics represent what is regarded in the literature as effective teacher professional learning. However, teacher collective efficacy has not been commonly associated with a theory of action for teacher professional learning as it has been predominately employed as an outcome measure of the health of a school’s collective culture.  

We contend that the measurable construct of teacher collective efficacy can be used as a design framework for professional learning programs as well as being an evaluative measure of its effectiveness. We acknowledge that the question of whether teacher collective efficacy is a necessary antecedent condition for effective professional learning, or a consequence of these programs remains open. We suspect that there might be reciprocal causation between teacher collective efficacy and effective professional learning where the presence of both enhances the other.  

The Importance of a Professional Learning Collective

This last section of the paper examines the confluence between the motivational sources of teacher collective efficacy and the principles of effective teacher professional learning (see Table 1 below) 

Sources of Teacher Collective Efficacy  Principles of Effective Teacher Professional Learning  
Mastery experiences Collaborative. Iterative. Focus on teachers’ work 
Vicarious experiences Collaborative. Focus on teachers’ work 
Social persuasion Collaborative 
Affective states Collaborative 
Table 1 Collective efficacy, principles and design of teacher professional learning (Loughland & Ryan, 2022, p.345) 

What is missing in the hypothesised model in table 1 is an explication of the processes that create the conditions for effective collaboration.  One influence on effective collaboration and learning relates to time constraint and leadership support (Park & So, 2014). We have another  clue to this missing piece of the puzzle in the finding that the density of networks is more important than centrality in professional learning networks (Berebitsky & Salloum, 2017).  Furthermore, the density of networks is significantly related to collective efficacy in schools  (Berebitsky & Salloum, 2017).  This suggests that more opportunities should be provided for purposeful learning interactions between teachers as depicted in the principles of teacher professional learning in Table 1. This suggests that effective teacher professional learning needs to involve more interaction between teachers than top-down delivery approaches that may be better suited to compulsory compliance training. We know that time for professional learning in schools may be limited so school leaders must make informed decisions on what model of professional learning to adopt in their school.  

The literature strongly suggests that a model of school-based, interactive teacher professional learning that focuses on teachers’ work in the classroom is the most effective (Kennedy, 2016). In this model, outside help in the form of academics and experienced practitioners in the system, is introduced if and when they are needed. 

We suspect that the arguments we have presented in this paper are not earth-shattering revelations for the readers. The principles of effective teacher professional learning are now well established in the literature. The challenge that remains is one of implementation. 

The challenges we identify here are very real to many teachers who are reading this article. There is the serious challenge of finding time for meaningful professional learning in the hectic schedules of schools. There is the conflation between the legislative requirements of compulsory compliance training and the real opportunities for professional growth afforded by effective teacher professional learning. There is the pervasive legacy of the cargo cult model of professional learning where the external consultant, the latest edu-guru, the international keynoter, or the social media superstar are regarded as experts and saviours. Valuable professional learning time is spent listening to them instead of engaging with your colleague next door on meaningful pedagogical discussion on how your students’ learning may be enhanced tomorrow, next week and next term.  

Our own post-graduate university courses at the Masters and Higher Degree Research levels are also not exempt from our criticism. Our MEd and EdD programs need to be more adaptive and responsive so that they might produce educators with the scholarly and practical wisdom that they can use to provide the best possible conditions for student success in the schools and systems where they work. 

None of these challenges are insurmountable but they require school and system leaders to build cultures of professional learning in schools that create a sense of collective teacher efficacy among their staff. Surely that is not too much to ask in an institution whose core business is learning? 

End note: 

1 Mastery experiences are those that focus on developing instructional skills and capabilities. The important goal of improving student outcomes in wellbeing and achievement is at the forefront. Vicarious  experiences are those whereby teachers and leaders learn from each other. Social persuasion involves a shared sense of purpose and vision, and a collaborative effort to achieve those goals. Affective states are the social-emotional aspects that underpin effective relationships, including trust, respect and dialogic approaches that value all voices and contributions. A positive relationship between these motivational constructs and collaborative professional learning has been found (Durksen et al. 2017). 

NB- Sections of this text have been taken from Tony and Mary’s published journal article (Loughland & Ryan, 2022) that can be found here https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1711801 (available to access through an academic institution or paid download) 

Berebitsky, D., & Salloum, S. J. (2017). The Relationship Between Collective Efficacy and Teachers’ Social Networks in Urban Middle Schools. AERA Open, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417743927  

Durksen, T. L., Klassen, R. M., & Daniels, L. M. (2017). Motivation and collaboration: The keys to a developmental framework for teachers’ professional learning. TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION, 67, 53-66. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.011  

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479  

Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79-91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021  

Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945-980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800  

Loughland, T., & Ryan, M. (2022). Beyond the measures: the antecedents of teacher collective efficacy in professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 48(2), 343-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1711801  

Maddux, J. E., & Gosselin, J. T. (2012). Self-Efficacy. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity. Second Edition (Second ed., pp. 198-224). The Guildford Press.  

Park, M., & So, K. (2014). Opportunities and Challenges for Teacher Professional Development: A Case of Collaborative Learning Community in South Korea. International education studies, 7(7), 96-108.  

Tony Loughland is an Associate Professor and Deputy Head of School (Research) in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales. 

Tony is an experienced educator who likes to think that theory should be the plaything of practice. He agrees with Marx’s assertion that philosophy should be used to not only interpret the world but to try to change it. Tony subscribes to Marx as he believes this orientation towards research is vital in a world threatened by anthropocentric climate change. Tony is currently leading projects on using AI for citizens’ informed participation in urban development, the provision of staffing for rural and remote areas in NSW and on Graduate Ready Schools. 

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 lecturer in literacy and English and has an extensive record of program development in universities and 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. 

Dont-try-this-aloneDownload

Moorambilla Voices – More than just a choir!

 Michelle Leonard and Margie Moore give us an insight into a regional focused choir and arts organisation designed to give our students access to multi arts programs . . . 

Moorambilla Voices (Moorambilla) is more than a choir. It was founded in 2006 with the aim of creating a regional choir of excellence that encompasses regional children and youth. Moorambilla Voices has expanded to include dance, Japanese Taiko drumming, lantern making and visual art.  

It is a regionally focussed arts organisation that seeks to empower children and youth to think big, dream widely and connect to Country1 and their communities. Moorambilla does this through an exceptional annual multi-arts program of workshops, cultural immersions, artistic commissions, residential camps, tours, recordings, performances and more recently an award-winning online learning platform, ‘Moorambilla Magic Modules’ 

Moorambilla fosters team cooperation through group performance: in choirs, Japanese Taiko drumming groups and dance, which develops general cooperative ability, confidence and leadership skills. Like our rivers in flood – our creative capacity is powerful, breathtaking and immense. 

Moorambilla Voices

  • includes voice, dance, drumming and visual arts; 
  • is a universal access program with equality of access for all. 
  • unrelentingly pursues excellence in artistic expression, pedagogically informed learning and performance. 
  • supports children’s mental well-being, resilience and self-esteem. 
  • celebrates and incorporates the Indigenous languages and worldview of regional Australia through consultation and collaboration. 
  • develops social capital through teamwork, community inclusion and group capacity building. 

Moorambilla’s commitment to, and connection with, living culture in regional NSW is vital to empower participants and audiences to initiate conversations at every level that encourage and celebrate inclusion and respect. Raising cultural awareness, recognition and respect is at the heart of what we have done since 2006. The use of Indigenous languages in the songs that are performed and the telling of the stories through dance, singing and drumming facilitates this cultural communication and links directly to the broader community agendas of promoting knowledge and learnings of our shared cultural history in an empowering and life affirming way. Our Indigenous elders, community leaders and student participants are vital to the success of the program and, as Elders and leaders from the regional communities share their themes and stories with the artists, they collectively weave them through our yearly program, so we all grow and learn cultural competency year on year on year. Ongoing conversations and support for the Moorambilla program come from the Gamilaraay, Yuwaalaraay, Wiradjuri, Wailwan, Ngiyampaa and Ngemba nations.  

Moorambilla prides itself on engaging children from the remote regional area of NSW. We operate regardless of the background or financial circumstances of our participants. Many children on remote properties, and from small towns, are disadvantaged and lack opportunities to engage with creative arts. Rural and remote Australia hosts many areas of disadvantage, with Australia’s lowest levels of income, education and employment. This coincides with high levels of Aboriginality and cultural disconnection and poorer chances of advancement.  

Schools in the region lack resources in terms of learning aids, instruments, computers, appropriate buildings and access to consistent internet services. It is common for schools’ internet service to be unreliable; this was exacerbated during the recent floods and mouse plagues (e.g., mice ate through cables to white boards and other electrical equipment). Staff turnover at all levels in the educational system is high and many children move from community to community resulting in disjointed educational exposure- exacerbated during COVID-19, and beyond. 

Moorambilla strongly believes that everyone, particularly in a regional or remote part of Australia, should not be limited by education, aspirations or belief in their capacity to live a life rich in opportunities. Moorambilla Voices has a well-developed and focussed planned approach to delivering its program. This ensures Moorambilla continues to contribute to a brighter, and more inclusive, future for our regional communities and the wider Australian arts ecology. It has made the incredible commitment, over seventeen years, to ensuring the pillars of excellence equity and opportunity are upheld and is the longest serving arts organisation in one third of the state.  

MOORAMBILLA AND MUSIC AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE

Evidence demonstrates the clear benefits of music and artistic education programs in breaking children free of disadvantage. Many recent studies confirm the significant value of carefully planned and well taught music/arts programs in all education and their developmental advantages for young people:  

  • Music improves self-confidence, self-expression and fosters creativity. It is a powerful tool in fostering health and well-being (Hallam, 2010).  
  • Music develops neural pathways and enhances brain function. Music stimulates incomparable development of a child’s brain and leads to improved concentration and memory abilities (George & Coch, 2011) 
  • Music promotes teamwork and collaboration. Children are brought to the highest levels of group participation requiring intense commitment, highly developed skills in coordination and a highly evolved sense of musicality and expressiveness (Schellenberg & Mankarious 2012) 
  • Involvement in arts practice can help children develop an understanding of, and respect for, real and fundamental cultural awareness (Bloomfield & Childs 2013) 
  • Dance supports student learning through student engagement, critical and creative thinking, and student self-concept (Fegley, 2010) 
  • Participation in group drumming can lead to significant improvements in multiple domains of social-emotional behaviour. This sustainable intervention can foster positive youth development (Ho, Tsao, Bloch & Zeltzer 2011) 

Over the past 20 years, multiple studies (Saunders, 2019; Lorenza, 2018; Meiners, 2017; Winner, Goldstein & Vincent-Lacrin, 2013; Bryce, Mendelovits, Beavis, McQueen & Adams, 2004; Fiske 1999) in Australia and elsewhere have demonstrated better personal and educational performance by those involved in the arts and music. These outcomes include measures such as national school results, student well-being, attendance, reduced need for school discipline or exclusion and better self-control.  

ARTISTIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FRAMEWORK FOR MOORAMBILLA VOICES

Moorambilla, in Gamilaroi language, means ‘place of deep fresh water’.  This image of ancient rock art represents the physical manifestation of the Brewarrina Fish Traps2. These are one of the oldest man-made structures in the world. The image is a mark on Country and represents our core program’s geographical footprint in Western New South Wales, Australia. It is a visual symbol of excellence manifest. It represents cooperation, innovation, transference of culture and knowledge, creativity and collaboration, as well as ethical and economic sustainability through aquaculture. This image was adopted in 2018 as the visual representation of our core program and, as such, sits at the heart of what we do. 

We recognise that water connects us all to each other – water is vital for human survival. The analogy of the Brewarrina fish traps allows us to connect the economic, cultural and creative importance of water to all Australians. Within this analogy, we have interconnecting slip streams in the Moorambilla Voices flow, which lead either a fish or fingerling to leadership opportunities. 

Our core program was established in the state of NSW, Australia. Our fish fingerlings3 swim through, in and out of this, as part of the ensembles of: 

  • Birralii (Year 3 mixed group);  
  • Mirray, primary girls (ages 8-12); 
  •  Birray, primary boys (ages 8-12)  
  • and grow into the MAXed-OUT youth company (ages 12-18). 

 The program starts with skills development workshops, based around music and dance, in schools through which participants are selected, not auditioned. Candidates are selected in workshops for the annual program based on natural ability and tenacity. For many the defining feature is their strong desire to positively contribute to the ensemble. 

 Our Moorambilla Voices program grows from fingerlings, at various stages of development, swimming through the bends in the flow radiating from our core program. As they swim through this structure, they tour, perform, increase in skill and knowledge, and potentially create new bends in the river (contributing to the wider arts ecology as alumni and associate artists).  

Candidates and professional artists engage with, and find their own flow in, the system. Because of the transient nature of our candidates and artists, they will enter into this system at various points in their educational life cycle. This sophisticated structure is fluid enough to support change as the child or artist grows. 

Moorambilla enables individuals to enter the slipstream or the natural flow in our program through our core ensemble program, or as an associate or featured artist, volunteer or audience member. Artists show our candidates career flow in action and the capacity for creative fluidity. Their connection to the program does not have to be linear; it can happen within the individual’s creative journey and life cycle.  

Our program supports a mentoring framework across all our associated art forms. The engagement of composers, choreographers, visual artists and performers of the highest calibre supports our fingerlings to grow. 

As cultural sector leaders, we reference this framework through our online, spoken and written word to support and nurture the creative flow of this program within the wider arts ecology. All artists, volunteers and candidates make a commitment to shared cultural understanding through singing, language art and dance, guided by cultural immersion on Country. Furthermore, we make an artistic commitment to recognise, acknowledge and celebrate our shared understanding of marks on Country from fingerling to fully grown fish. 

 A COVID SILVER LINING – MOORAMBILLA MAGIC MODULES

Moorambilla Voices is an organisation that seeks to empower children and youth to think big, dream widely and connect to Country and their communities. More recently, to support this aim, Moorambilla Voices has created a Nationally award-winning online learning platform – Moorambilla Magic Modules – click here  

 These modules won the award for the APRA AMCOS National best educational program 2022.  

COVID-19, floods, mice and Moorambilla Magic Modules

In early 2020 the world changed. At the end of March 2020, it became clear that the normal mode of delivery for the program was about to undergo significant change due to the emerging restrictions unfolding for COVID-19 risk mitigation. 

By April 2020, Moorambilla Voices made the decisive and empowering decision to support all of its associated artists and create pedagogically sequential 20–30 minute modules in consultation with the Artistic Director. Twenty-nine artists were eventually employed to create these modules as the backbone of the 2020/21 program. Artists were paired with an educator so there was industry knowledge coupled with curriculum expertise, and so that the pedagogy is embedded in the content created.  

These modules subsequently connected our established and emerging artists to our regional children and their communities, offering skills, humour, hope and a sense of connection at a time when the arts ecology felt like it was fraying beyond repair.  

Each module showcases the specialised artistry, integrity and immense capacity of the individual artist delivered in a way that was engaging, sequential, empowering and palatable for regional children and youth already experiencing isolation, lack of resources and opportunity before COVID-19. 

In March 2020 floodwaters were swiftly moving across the region that had until that point been a dust bowl; in April 2021 the same region experienced the might of a mouse plague and then floods again in 2021 and 2022, yet still the resilience and commitment to creativity and connection has been maintained by our communities and the Moorambilla team.  

Now all of the Moorambilla Magic Modules (157) have been mapped to the NSW syllabuses (music and dance), as well as visual arts, drama, and PE syllabuses to further support their use in the classroom. Now regional educators who have the will but not the skill to engage with the creative arts, can engage in professional development at school with a sequential empowering resource, of which 42% of the content is First Nations led, created or consulted and where every artist has an understanding and connection to the region. 

The Moorambilla Magic Modules demonstrate in a tangible way that we have the knowledge and experience in the arts industry to develop and provide online curriculum content for schools. 

Connection to current Syllabuses

Existing evidence, underpinning the Moorambilla modules, supports the clear benefits of artistic education programs in helping students develop better self-confidence and self-efficacy.  

These modules are based on direct instruction and are designed to create the maximum level of engagement in students4. They integrate educational theories and practical approaches for differentiated teaching to challenge and cater for the needs of all learners5. 

These modules represent a collection of resources (strategies, techniques, processes, ideas, tools, digital technologies/ICT) that support participation and engagement for all learners in arts-based classroom experiences6. They use a range of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies to manage learning, participation and engagement7. 

Evidence shows that arts learning promotes teamwork and collaboration. We focus on collaborative tasks which require intense commitment and promote the development of coordination and expressiveness.8 

Each module is built on differentiated teaching pedagogies embedded in the design of their structure, content and delivery. The Dance modules employ explicit instruction using imagery, descriptions and metaphors to ‘feel/experience’ the movement9. The music modules are presented sequentially through embodied learning starting with a simple phrase reinforced cumulatively10. The modules use sequential and scaffolded learning taking the children from the known to the unknown, providing a firm foundation which is built on, so the students feel supported as they develop their knowledge and skills.  

The modules support student learning through student engagement, reflection, critical and creative thinking, and improving students’ sense of self-concept.11 

Development of the Modules

Interactive video modules were developed for primary and secondary students, covering and mapped to the NSW Educational Standards Authority’s creative arts syllabus. They include song, dance, art, craft, taiko drumming, photography, drama, literacy and Indigenous culture. They are distributed across three learning stages and five curriculum categories: 

Learning Stage Dance First Nations Music & Singing Visual Arts & Drama Percussion & Rhythm Total Modules for each stage 
2 (early primary) 17 42 34 19 5 70 
3 (late primary/early secondary) 32 54 37 22 6 94 
4 (secondary) 39 56 44 30 30 137 
Total      157 
Some modules overlap categories, and several can apply to more than one learning stage. 

 Subjects and artistic presenters are shown in Appendix 1.  Top national performers and mentors have been used throughout. Singing coaches include previous members of the Song Company (Anna Fraser, Hannah Fraser and Andrew O’Connor). Taikoz artists explain taiko and general percussion (Anton Lock, Kerry Joyce and Sophie Unsen), Modules have been created by some of Australia’s top dance educators and performers (Jacob Williams, Courtney Scheu, Tai Savage) and many well-known Indigenous artists (Frank Wright, Amy Flannery, Neville Williams-Boney). All of these workshops feature Australian music composed by well-known Australian composers – Kevin Barker, Alice Chance, Andrew Howes, Elena Kats-Chernin, Elizabeth Jigalin, Josephine Gibson, Riley Lee, Christine Pan and Oscar Sweeney and more.  

All modules are activity-based – there is no listening without doing. All demonstrate a level of energy matching that of the students.  

Click here for 2020 Module Highlights Video (4m28s):    

In June 2021, Michelle Leonard, Moorambilla Voices Artistic Director, met with school executives for initial interest consultations around utilising this resource, potential barriers and how to overcome them.  

The modules were pilot tested through workshops delivered at schools located in Dubbo and Gulargambone, providing the opportunity for Moorambilla to evaluate the modules’ efficacy as a learning tool and their further market potential. The learnings gained from these evaluations were used to fine-tune the development of the modules being created at the time.  

This cycle of testing and review will continue over time, as we work with the schools while we are still developing modules so that we can apply feedback in real time. 

They are going to be very useful to teachers because the modules are so well designed by professionals who have done it all before. Brad Haling, teacher Gulargambone Central school. 

Gulargambone Central School has used the modules the way Moorambilla anticipated:   

  • Primary teacher’s expectation (17sec) https://vimeo.com/527594061 
  • School principal’s impression (45sec) https://vimeo.com/527016229 
  • Primary class learning from Hannah Fraser (13 sec) https://vimeo.com/526787115 
  • Michelle Leonard summary (33 sec) https://vimeo.com/526777663 

Other teachers contacted by Moorambilla have reviewed the modules, with strong positive results.  

The modules are an exciting and dynamic online program that have made an enormous difference to my teaching of the Creative Arts. The students have enjoyed the diverse lessons and have made a great connection to country. The units are easy to follow and enjoyable to teach, especially for teachers with no experience of dance or music. Kate Harper, Balranald Central School 

All modules developed to date through the Moorambilla Magic Modules are sequential in nature.  Skills are taught, reinforced, built upon and extended throughout each individual module as well as each set of modules.  

Most modules begin with a warm-up and end with a cool down exercise. Each module’s activities move from simple to more complex activities, carefully scaffolded so that the students experience success by the end of each module.  This may be the performance of a First Nations’ sitting down dance (taught through direct instruction) that teaches each movement in context and reinforces each movement phrase along the way; or the drawing of a First Nations animal or fish using the x-ray drawing technique carefully explained and demonstrated bit by bit; or the performance of a complex percussion or taiko drumming pattern learned cumulatively phrase by phrase through speech, movement and imitation.   

Most of the modules are in sets of 3, 6 or 12 modules, with each module building on the one before, so that by the end of the sequence students have built a strong skill set in that particular arts area and experienced creative, joyful and successful learning experiences. 

Mapping

In order to establish the relevance of the modules for busy teachers and students in schools Moorambilla Voices has ‘mapped’ the modules to the detailed Outcomes and Objectives of the NSW Syllabuses for primary and secondary schools. The maps contain:  

  • a summary of what is in the modules (as a lesson plan)  
  • how it relates to the areas of skill and knowledge development for each subject,  
  • an outline of the outcomes and objectives covered in the lesson.  
  • These are supplemented by:  
  • links to more information and  
  • fun ideas for extending the students engagement and for giving teachers extra material to build on.  

This mapping process provides a crucial link between the classroom and the modules that makes them more meaningful and relevant. It also breaks down the educator’s time barrier administratively to their inclusion.  

Results

Many of the artistic projects featured in our 2021 Magic Modules were featured in a live context during our 2022 camps and gala concert. Perhaps most importantly, the 2021 Magic Modules provided the means to continue our strong engagement and relationships with regional NSW school teachers and students, ensuring the success of Moorambilla’s 2022 life-changing, in-person multi-disciplinary arts programs. 

The exceptional standard of the Moorambilla Magic Modules has been recognised nationally, being awarded the 2021 APRA / AMCOS National award for Excellence in Music Education. 

Conclusion

Moorambilla is enjoying its seventeenth year celebrating the pursuit of artistic excellence, the energy of collaboration, the creation of new music, the sheer joy of singing, dancing, drumming and making art together in this rich and vibrant program. This is acknowledged by the achievement of many national awards over a number of years. We are thrilled to be an important part of the national conversation around identity and excellence.  

Click here for more information on the choirs, the candidates and our program please see the attachments – 2022 and 2019 concert programs and flyers.  

Endnotes

1 Country – http://www.visitmungo.com.au/aboriginal-country

When Aboriginal people use the English word ‘Country’ it is meant in a special way. For Aboriginal people culture, nature and land are all linked. Aboriginal communities have a cultural connection to the land, which is based on each community’s distinct culture, traditions and laws.

Country takes in everything within the landscape – landforms, waters, air, trees, rocks, plants, animals, foods, medicines, minerals, stories and special places. Community connections include cultural practices, knowledge, songs, stories and art, as well as all people: past, present and future. People have custodial responsibilities to care for their Country, to ensure that it continues in proper order and provides physical sustenance and spiritual nourishment. These custodial relationships may determine who can speak for particular Country.

These concepts are central to Aboriginal spirituality and continue to contribute to Aboriginal identity. Aboriginal communities associate natural resources with the use and benefit of traditional foods and medicines, caring for the land, passing on cultural knowledge and strengthening social bonds.

2 The Brewarrina Fishtraps, or as they are traditionally known Baiame’s Ngunnhu, are a complex network of river stones arranged to form ponds and channels that catch fish as they travel downstream. Known as one of the oldest human-made structures in the world, the traps are located in the Barwon River on the outskirts of Brewarrina.

3 Fingerling – A young fish, especially one less than a year old and about the size of a human finger

4 Smithrim, K., & Upitis, R. (2005). Learning through the Arts: Lessons of Engagement. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(1/2), 109-127.

5 Saunders, J.N. (2019) Dramatic Interventions: A multi-site case study analysis of student outcomes in the School Drama program. University of Sydney.

Lorenza, L.M. (2018) Curriculum change and teachers’ responses: a NSW case study. University of Sydney.

Meiners, J. (2017) So can we dance? : in pursuit of an inclusive dance curriculum for the primary school years in Australia. University of South Australia.

6 Winner, E., Goldstein, T. R., Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Arts for art’s sake? Overview, OECD Publishing.

Bryce, J., Mendelovits, J., Beavis, A., McQueen, J., & Adams, I. (2004). Evaluation of school-based arts education programmes in Australian schools. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Fiske, E. (Ed.). (1999). Champions of change: The impact of arts on learning. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnerships/President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities.

7 Dinham, J. (2019). Delivering Authentic Arts Education. Melbourne, AUSTRALIA, Cengage

Bryce, J., Mendelovits, J., Beavis, A., McQueen, J., & Adams, I. (2004). Evaluation of school-based arts education programmes in Australian schools. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

8 Hallam, S. (2010) The power of music: Its impact on the intellectual, social and personal development of children and young people, International Journal of Music Education, 28 (3), 269-289

9 Hattie, J., (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge

10 Juntunen, Marja-Leena. (2005). Exploring and learning music through embodied experiences, “Music and Development – Challenges for Music Education”, The First European Conference on Developmental Psychology of Music Proceedings. 273-276.

11 Fegley, L.E. (2010) Impact of Dance on Student Learning https://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession89-10MIT/Fegley_LMIT2010.pdf accessed 10 June 2021

Becker, K. (2013). Dancing through the school day: how dance catapults learning in elementary school. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(3), 6-8. 

Bloomfield, A & Childs J. (2013) Teaching integrated arts in the primary school: Dance, drama, music and the visual arts, Routledge, New York. 

Bryce, J., Mendelovits, J., Beavis, A., McQueen, J., & Adams, I. (2004). Evaluation of school-based arts education programmes in Australian schools. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. 

Fegley, L.E. (2010) Impact of Dance on Student Learning https://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession89-10MIT/Fegley_LMIT2010.pdf 

Fiske, E. (Ed.). (1999). Champions of change: The impact of arts on learning. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnerships/President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities. 

George, E.M. & Coch, D. (2011) Music Training and working memory: an ERP study, Neurosychologia, 49(5), 1083-1094 

Goldsworthy A. (2022) The slow fade of music education https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2022/june/anna-goldsworthy/slow-fade-music-education#mtr 

Haselbach, B (1981), Margaret Murray (Translator), Improvisation, Dance, Movement, St Louis: Magna Music Baton 

Ho, P., Tsao, J.C.I., Bloch, L., Zeltzer, L. K. (2011) The Impact of group drumming on Socio-Emotional Behaviour in Low-Income Children. https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/250708.pdf 

Kemp, A. E. (1984) Carl Orff, A Seminal Influence in World Music Education, International Journal of Music Education, os-3: 61, 62-64. DOI: 10.1177/025576148400300114  

Lorenza, L.M. (2018) Curriculum change and teachers’ responses: a NSW case study. University of Sydney. 

Meiners, J. (2017) So can we dance? : in pursuit of an inclusive dance curriculum for the primary school years in Australia. University of South Australia.  

Mungo National Park Website, Share Mungo /Culture: Aboriginal Country http://www.visitmungo.com.au/aboriginal-country (accessed 6 November 2022) 

Murdi Paaki Regional Assembly, Brewarrina Fish Traps https://www.mpra.com.au/brewarrina-fish-traps (accessed November 6, 2022) 

Orff, C (1963). The Schulwerk: its origins and aims. Music Educators Journal, 49 (5), 69-74. DOI: 10.2307,3389951 

Pavlou, V. (2013). Investigating interrelations in visual arts education: aesthetic enquiry, possibility thinking and creativity. International Journal of Education through Art, 17(1), 71-88.  

Pitts, S. (2012) Chances and Choices: Exploring the Impact of Music Education. London: Oxford University Press 

Saunders, J.N. (2019) Dramatic Interventions: A multi-site case study analysis of student outcomes in the School Drama program. University of Sydney. 

Schellenberg, E.G. & Mankarious, M (2012) Music training and emotional comprehension in childhood. Emotion, 12 (5), 887. 

Staveley, R. (2018), The Impact of Cognitive Neuroscience on Music Pedagogy, Orff Schulwerk in America: Our 50th Anniversary Issue, www.aosa.org, Spring 2018, 68-75.  

The Free Dictionary, Definition of a Fingerling, www.thefreedictionary.com/fingerlings (accessed on November 6, 2022). 

Winner, E., Goldstein, T. R., Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Arts for art’s sake? Overview, OECD Publishing. 

Wide Open Sky – Award winning documentary about Moorambilla Voices https://www.wideopenskymovie.com/trailer 

Michelle Leonard, OAM Michelle Leonard is the Founder, Artistic Director and Conductor of Moorambilla Voices. Michelle is widely sought after as a choral clinician on Australian repertoire and appears regularly as a guest speaker, adjudicator and workshop facilitator. Michelle was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for Services to the Community and Performing Arts in 2017, 2018 the Sydney University Alumni of the year award for services to the Arts and in 2019 was named in the Financial Review’s top 100 most influential women. In 2021 Michelle led the rehearsal nationally for the ABC Classic choir.  

Margie Moore, OAM, Arts and Education consultant Margie has extensive experience as an arts, education and music educator and administrator. She has had successful careers as a teacher, music consultant, lecturer in arts education and managing the highly regarded Sydney Symphony Education Program. She offers consultancy to a range of arts organisations in Australia and the UK. Margie has been on the board of Moorambilla Voices since 2010 and has held executive positions in both the NSW and National Orff Schulwerk Associations.  

Appendix 1: Module details

Module specific links

Primary class learning from Hannah Fraser  https://vimeo.com/526787115 

Lexi singing along with Hannah Fraser Module 1 https://vimeo.com/623171922 

2020 Moorambilla Magic Module highlights: 

Performance outcomes: 2013 Coonamble Showground 

Content

Subjects of the modules, all of which have been mapped to the Creative Arts syllabus, are: 

* Indicates a First Nations artist/presenter 

  • Literacy Modules with Michelle Leonard OAM (AD Moorambilla Voices), Andrew Howes (established Australian composer), Cathy Colless (regional author) and Billie the Bird – 3 modules Stage 2/3.  
  • Music Literacy with Michelle Leonard OAM – 10 modules, Stage 2/3 
  • Music Literacy with Michelle Leonard OAM – 10 modules, Stage 4 
  • Dance Fundamentals with Jacob Williams (Sydney Dance Company) in Dubbo – 6 modules, Stage 2/3/4. 
  • Retrospective repertoire modules – with Michelle Leonard OAM, pianist Ben Burton and composer and performer Josie Gibson – 4 modules, Stage 2/3. 
  • Phone Photography with Noni Carroll – Moorambilla’s resident photographer from Wagga Wagga – 6 modules, Stage 2/3/4. 
  • Connection to Country – Dance with NAISDA graduate Amy Flannery* from Forbes – 6 modules, Stage 2/3/4 
  • Emu connection – with NAISDA graduate Neville Williams-Boney* in Sydney – 6 modules, Stage 2/3/4 
  • Torres Strait music, dance and weaving with Tainga Savage* (Currently part of the Australian ‘Hamilton’ cast) from Cobar – 3 modules, Stage 2/3/4 
  • Torres Strait weaving with Tainga Savage*  (Currently part of the ‘Hamilton’ cast) from Cobar – 3 modules, Stage 4 
  • How to Draw X-ray style animals with Frank Wright* – Aboriginal artist in Walgett – 12 modules, Stage 2/3/4  
  • Lost Allsorts Dance Collective*  (independent dance artists, NAISDA graduates) modules on dance and weaving – 6 modules, Stages 2/3/4.  
  • Vocal Bootcamp for Primary with Hannah Fraser previously from Song Company – 6 modules, Stage 3/4  
  • Yoga Flow – with Courtney Scheu (Plastic Belly) from the hinterland of Brisbane – 6 modules, Stage 3/4.  
  • Djembe modules with Elliott Orr (Talkin’ the drum) from Byron Bay – 6 modules, Stage ¾ 
  • Vocal Bootcamp for Secondary with Anna Fraser, previously from Song Company – 8 modules, Stage 4. 
  • Vocal Bootcamp for Secondary with Andrew O’Connor, previously from Song Company – 6 modules, plus warm up module Stage 4. 
  • Body Percussion, beat boxing and more with Anton Lock (Cirque du Soleil/Taikoz/independent DJ video artist) – 6 modules, Stage 4. 
  • Taiko Fundamentals with Sophie Unsen from Taikoz – 6 modules, Stage 4. 
  • Taiko Fundamentals with Kerryn Joyce from Taikoz – 6 modules, Stage 4. 
  • Stagecraft with Tom Royce-Hampton (actor, musician, director) from Melbourne – 6 modules, Stage 4. 
  • Comedy and Public Speaking with Dane Simpson* from Wagga Wagga – 6 modules, Stage 4.  
  • Fan Dance with Kerryn Joyce from Taikoz – 6 modules, Stage 4. 
  • Composition with Elizabeth Jigalin (established composer and co-founder of the award winning ‘Music Box Project’) from Sydney – 6 modules, Stage 4 
Moorambilla-VoicesDownload

Strategies for supporting students with Attention- Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Years 1-6

Rose Dixon gives some practical advice on how to support students with ADHD . . . 

WHAT IS ADHD?

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects around 9.4% of children under the age of 18. ADHD is one of the most commonly diagnosed conditions in children (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). The diagnostic term attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) refers to individuals who display patterns of inattention, impulsivity, and overactive behavior that interfere with daily functioning (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) V (APA, 2013) criteria for diagnosing ADHD list three types of ADHD and the accompanying characteristics. 

THREE TYPES

Inattentive ADHD

Formerly referred to as ADD, students with inattentive ADHD display symptoms of inattention, but do not possess symptoms of hyperactivity or impulsivity. This is the type of ADHD most commonly found in girls. As students with this type of ADHD don’t exhibit the typical high energy and impulsive behaviours, they can often be under identified. 

Hyperactive/Impulsive ADHD

This subset of ADHD displays symptoms of impulsivity or hyperactivity but does not display symptoms of inattention. 

Combined

People with combined ADHD display symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. 

The combined type of ADHD is characterised by symptoms of both inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. Students with combined type ADHD exhibit symptoms of inattention such as struggling to concentrate on their work, difficulty following instructions, appearing distracted, forgetfulness, and misplacing items. They also exhibit hyperactive and impulsive symptoms such as being unable to sit still, restlessness, talkativeness, high energy levels, and interrupting others. 

For all three types, these characteristics have to be present before twelve years of age and be manifested in school and out of school settings. They must also have adverse effects on academic performance, occupational success, or social-emotional development (APA, 2013). To add to the complexity of the diagnosis, children with ADHD are also likely to have co- existing emotional, behavioural, developmental, learning, or physical conditions (Wolraich & DuPaul, 2010). 

Students who have ADHD face many challenges in school. The core symptoms make adapting to behavioural expectations and norms at school very difficult, often resulting in academic problems and peer exclusion (de Boer &Pijl, 2016; Mikami, 2010). Students with ADHD commonly have co-occurring problems such as anxiety, depression and learning disabilities. All predict further school impairment (Larson, Russ, Kahn, & Halfon, 2011; Taanila et al., 2014). 

DIAGNOSIS OF ADHD

ADHD is more commonly diagnosed in boys than girls, usually in a ratio of four to one, but research into ADHD in adulthood suggests an almost equal balance between men and women (Barkley & Fischer, 2008). A lower diagnosis rate among females in childhood can result because girls with ADHD are more likely than boys to have the inattentive form of ADHD and are less likely to show obvious problems or challenging behaviours. 

Whilst students with ADHD need to be diagnosed by a medical professional, teachers may notice some of the following behaviours usually related to the three different types. 

Predominantly inattentive type 
The student may: 
 Submit inappropriate work or inaccurate work 
 Have difficulty attending to conversations, activities or tasks 
 Be easily distracted 
 Have difficulty following directions 
 Frequently lose materials and/or have difficulty organising tasks and materials 
Predominantly hyperactive/impulsive type 
The student may: 
 Appear to be in constant motion 
 Frequently fidget and move in their seat 
 Become restless during quiet activities 
 Leave their seat when expected to remain seated 
 Interrupt others and classroom activities 
 Talk excessively and/or fail to follow classroom procedures 

TREATMENT FOR ADHD

While there is no cure for ADHD, and it can persist into adulthood (Barkley & Fischer,2008), evidence- based treatment can help a great deal with symptoms (Moore et al, 2018). 

Treatment typically involves medications, behavioural and/or educational interventions. Given the often poor school outcomes of students, a growing number of studies have trialled school-based interventions for ADHD (van Krayenoord, Waterworth & Brady,2014) including the daily report card (DRC), where the child is set, and awarded for achieving, specific behavioural targets; academic interventions which focus on antecedents of problems; organisational skills training; and social skills training.(Chronis, Jones, & Raggi, 2006; Evans, Owens, Wymbs, & Ray, 2018). 

USEFUL CLASSROOM STRATEGIES TO SUPPORT STUDENTS FROM YEARS 1 – 6 WITH ADHD

Teachers can employ evidence-based strategies in three key areas which have demonstrated positive outcomes. These include classroom management, organisation training and social skills training.  

1 Evidence-based proactive strategies which improve behaviour

The behavioural classroom management approach encourages a student’s positive behaviours in the classroom, through a reward system or a daily report card, and discourages their negative behaviours. This teacher-led approach has been shown to influence student behaviour in a constructive manner, increasing academic engagement. Although tested mostly in primary schools, behavioural classroom management has been shown to work for students of all ages (Evan, Owens & Burford, 2014; Harrison, Burford, Evans & Owens, 2013) 

Develop routines around homework and classroom activities. You will need to teach and reteach these routines and positively reinforce the student when they follow them. 

Give praise and rewards when rules are followed. 

2 Organisational training

Organisational training teaches students time management, planning skills, and ways to keep school materials organized in order to optimize student learning and reduce distractions. This management strategy has been tested with children and adolescents (Kofler et al, 2011). 

These strategies can include: 

  • Giving clear, effective directions or commands. Usually only give one command at a time and use a student’s name in the command. 
  • Using Visuals – Place charts around with the Rules and Routines on them  
  • Allowing breaks – for children with ADHD, paying attention takes extra effort and can be very tiring. 
  • Allow time to move and exercise 
  • Transition Buddies  
  • Teacher cues for transition between activities, such as claps or music 
  • Color-coded folders 
  • Extra books – a set at home and a set at school 
  • Use of calendars 
  • Seating arrangements 
  • Close to teacher 
  • Separate desks 
  • Away from distractions (e.g., electric pencil sharpener) 
  • Away from windows, the door and other high traffic areas 
  • Avoiding bright display areas at the front of the room or in the group teaching area 
  • Assignments and Homework 
  • Make assignments clear – check with the student to see if they understand what they need to do 
  • Provide choices to show mastery (for example, let the student choose among written essay, oral report, online quiz, or hands-on project) 
  • Make sure assignments are not long and repetitive. Shorter assignments that provide a little challenge without being too hard may work well 
  • Be creative – creativity is a strength for students with ADHD 
  • Use organisational tools, such as a homework folder, to limit the number of things the child has to track. 
  • Ask another student, if possible, to be a homework partner  
3 Evidence based Social Skills Training

Social skills training allows children and adults to acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills they need to recognise and manage their emotions, demonstrate caring and concern for others, establish positive relationships, make responsible decisions and handle challenging situations constructively. Many available programs provide instruction in and opportunities to practise, apply and be recognised for using social skills. This type of learning is fundamental not only to children’s social and emotional development but also to their health, ethical development, citizenship, motivation to achieve and academic learning (Evan, Owens & Bunford, 2014). 

Research shows that large numbers of children with ADHD are contending with significant social, emotional and mental health barriers to their success in school and life (Kofler et al, 2018). In addition, some children with ADHD engage in challenging behaviours that teachers must address in order to provide high quality instruction. Schools can use a variety of strategies to help students improve their emotional well-being and connectedness with others. Providing children with well managed learning environments and instruction in social skills addresses many of these learning barriers. It does so by enhancing school attachment, reducing risky behaviours, promoting positive development, and positively influencing academic achievement. Well-implemented social skills training is associated with the following outcomes:  

Better academic performance 
Achievement scores an average of 11 percentile points higher than students who did not receive social skills training 
Improved attitudes and behaviours 
Greater motivation to learn 
Deeper commitment to school 
Increased time devoted to schoolwork, and better classroom behaviour. 
Happier/ fewer instances of mental health disorders (e.g. depression) 
Less likely to be victims of bullying 
Stronger relationships with teachers 

(Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger 2011, Durlak, Domitrovich, Weissberg, & Gullotta, 2014). 

CONCLUSION

The evidence-based strategies that have been discussed in this paper can usually be implemented in the Year 1-6 classroom. They address the core symptoms of ADHD such as the ability to pay attention, conflict with teachers and peers, challenges with executive function, inattention symptoms, poor organisation skills and self-esteem. However, school- based interventions should target the outcomes identified as most important to the students and their families. Other studies have found that positive teacher- child relationships and good home-school relationships (Gwernan-Jones et al, 2015) and advocacy for the student may be the strongest intervention and have the greatest impact on student’s outcomes. 

Even if you find it difficult to implement the adjustments in the three areas outlined above, just maintaining good relationships with the students and their families can be a very strong starting point. 

American Psychiatric Association, D., & American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (Vol. 5, No. 5). Washington, DC: American psychiatric association. 

Barkley, R. A., Fischer, M. (2008). ADHD in adults: What the science says. New York, NY: Guilford. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Data and statistics about ADHD. 

Chronis, A. M., Jones, H. A., & Raggi, V. L. (2006). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Clinical psychology review, 26(4), 486-502. 

de Boer, A., & Pijl, S. J. (2016). The acceptance and rejection of peers with ADHD and ASD in general secondary education. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(3), 325-332. 

Durlak J. A., Domitrovich C. E., Weissberg R. P., and Gullotta T. P. (Eds.) Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2014. 

Durlak J. A., Weissberg R. P., Dymnicki A. B., Taylor R. D., and Schellinger K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 2011; 82: 405-432. 

Evans S, Owens J, Bunford N. Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 2014;43(4):527-551 

Evans, S. W., Owens, J. S., Wymbs, B. T., & Ray, A. R. (2018). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(2), 157-198. 

Gwernan-Jones, R., Moore, D. A., Garside, R., Richardson, M., Thompson-Coon, J., Rogers, M., et al. (2015). ADHD, parent perspectives and parent–teacher relationships: Grounds for conflict. British Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 279–300. 

Harrison JR, Bunford N, Evans SW, Owens JS. Educational accommodations for students with behavioral challenges: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 2013;83(4):551-97. 

Kofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Sarver, D. E., Raiker, J. S., & Alderson, R. M. (2011). Working memory deficits and social problems in children with ADHD. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 39, 805-817. 

Kofler, M. J., Sarver, D. E., Harmon, S. L., Moltisanti, A., Aduen, P. A., Soto, E. F., & Ferretti, N. (2018). Working memory and organizational skills problems in ADHD. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 59(1), 57–67. 

Larson, K., Russ, S. A., Kahn, R. S., & Halfon, N. (2011). Patterns of comorbidity, functioning, and service use for US children with ADHD, 2007. Pediatrics, 127(3), 462-470. 

Mikami, A. Y. (2010). The importance of friendship for youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Clinical child and family psychology review, 13, 181-198. 

Moore DA, Russell AE, Matthews J, Ford TJ, Rogers M, Ukoumunne OC, et al. School-based interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review with multiple synthesis methods. Review of Education. Published online October 18, 2018. 

Perry, R. C., Ford, T. J., O’Mahen, H., & Russell, A. E. (2021). Prioritising targets for school-based ADHD interventions: a Delphi survey. School Mental Health, 13(2), 235-249. 

Taanila, A., Ebeling, H., Tiihala, M., Kaakinen, M., Moilanen, I., Hurtig, T., & Yliherva, A. (2014). Association between childhood specific learning difficulties and school performance in adolescents with and without ADHD symptoms: a 16-year follow-up. Journal of Attention Disorders, 18(1), 61-72. 

van Kraayenoord, C. E., Waterworth, D., & Brady, T. (2014). Responding to individual differences in inclusive classrooms in Australia. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 17(2), 48-59. 

Very Well mind – Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder  https://www.verywellmind.com/adhd-overview-4581801 

Wolraich, M. L., & DuPaul, G. J. (2010). ADHD Diagnosis and Management: A Practical Guide for the Clinic and the Classroom. Brookes Publishing Company. PO Box 10624, Baltimore, MD 21285. 

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.  

Supporting-students-with-ADHDDownload

Making Our Public Schools Secular

Jack Galvin Waight delves into the reasons why it is essential to make our public schools secular havens . . . 

As educators we know that in the classroom, and in modern society, time is crucial. Workloads are excessive and the curriculum is crowded. As outlined in my Eric Pearson 2021 Report: Teaching not preaching: Making our public schools secular Special Religious Education (SRE) is a massive waste of valuable learning time. The equivalent of the loss of a full term for a primary school graduate.  

It is also an administrative burden for schools and causes our students to both sit out and miss out. SRE, even contradicts the Department’s own Schools Success Model that “requires a focus on teaching and learning” and the 2020 NSW Curriculum Review which recommended as a priority that the Government reduce the impact of extra-curricular issues and topics. (NSW Education Standard Authority [NESA], 2020) 

Compounding this loss of valuable time is the weekly battle to keep our schools secular havens.  Programs like Hardcore Christians, Jesus Car Racing, and Hillsong’s Shine are considered, by academia, as the exact opposite of what is appropriate and required for our students and society. Like the discredited $61million a year taxpayer funded chaplaincy program, there is a consensus that SRE is outdated, devalues the profession, potentially promotes extremism and is simply not appropriate for 21st Century learning. 

My report (Galvin Waight, 2022), which was released in July 2022, analyses this research, examines special legal advice pertaining to legislation, and contains structured interviews with academics, activists, labour theorists, and union leaders. The paper provides key campaign recommendations to ensure that our NSW public education system is secular, inclusive and appropriately reflects multicultural and pluralistic contemporary society.  

The findings highlight that, as a profession, it is time for us take this time back. Our students need education not indoctrination. 

A profession united

This important work has started. For the first time ever in NSW, and as an outcome of my report there is a unified educational alliance — Primary Principals’ Association (PPA), Secondary Principals’ Council (SPC), the NSW Teachers Federation and the NSW Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations (P&C) — arguing that SRE/Special Education in Ethics (SEE) simply must go, or at the very least, not interfere with curriculum time.  

These peak groups are calling on both sides of politics to implement an independent review of SRE/SEE.1  

It should be noted that there has not been an independent review of SRE since the 1980 Rawlinson report. The 2015 ARTD Consultancy2 terms of reference examined only the implementation of SRE and SEE in NSW Government schools – it was not an independent review into SRE/SEE. 

All peak educational groups are unified in their view that not interrupting curriculum time is essential. Noting that SRE/SEE could take place in schools at lunch/ recess or before and after school. A precedent for this was created in 2015, when the incoming Victorian Labor Government introduced a ministerial direction, removing Scripture from formal class time, virtually eliminating the program (Galvin Waight, 2022), Providers and any other religious or community groups could still apply to use public schools, outside of curriculum time, as part of the Department’s Sharing of School Facilities policy (NSW Department of Education, 2021) 

If it can happen in Victoria: it can happen in NSW. Both the Primary Principals Association (PPA), 2022, and the Secondary Principals Council (SPC) 2017 have published position papers on the issues which they have identified around SRE/SEE. They can be accessed via: https://nswppa.org.au/position-papers & https://www.nswspc.org.au/position-papers/. Federation also has a long-standing policy position that SRE has no place in NSW public schools and that any education (religious or not) should be done in line with an approved curriculum and by a qualified teacher. This includes Ethics which as highlighted in my research paper, started out with good intentions but has become a distraction, helped to legitimise SRE, and is now part of the problem. 

Parental and community support

Surveys and census data continues to reveal a growing community consensus and groundswell of public opinion for secular education and society. As part of my report Federation commissioned a Quantitative Survey of the NSW public and in April 2022 an online survey of 1,467 adults was conducted. Results showed that most parents want religion to be taught after school hours and that most support is for secular values to be taught.  

Of note, interviews revealed that when parents find out what is actually occurring in their children’s SRE lesson, they often become the greatest activists for change. Fairness in Religion in Schools (FIRIS) is one of these parent and community groups that continues to hold the Department, Providers and Government to account. FIRIS is most concerned that SRE is a self-regulating system with no oversight, and calls for the legislation to change and the time be given back to the professionals. 

This community activism, survey data and international research comparisons (Galvin Waight, 2022) show that Australia, and NSW in particular, is completely out of step with the rest of the world. Most developed countries have recognised the dangers of extremism and have shifted to a world view General Religious Education (GRE) approach.3   

This is highlighted by Dr Jennifer Bleazby’s 2022 study showing that religious instruction (SRE) can indoctrinate students by encouraging them to uncritically accept beliefs that are not well supported by evidence. Including conspiracy thinking, science denialism and extremist thinking. Her report concluded that it is time to seriously revaluate the place of religious instruction in our schools.  

Alarmingly, even the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in international legal cases has criticised and likened countries that still have a segregated, partial exemption process such as NSW to a ‘ghetto approach’ (Evans, 2008b, p. 470). (Galvin Waight, 2022)   

Our Unfair funding system

Australia is also an international outlier when it comes to schools funding by continuing to maintain one of the highest concentrations of religious schools compared with other OECD countries. Approximately 30 per cent of all schools in Australia are affiliated with a religion and 94 per cent of private schools. (Centre for Public Education Research (CPER), 2022) This system of segregating children along lines of class, wealth, and religion, with large government subsidies to private schools and little accountability, is unprecedented internationally.  

The media has largely focused on the proportion of public money going to elite and well-endowed private schools, but my report examines what Jennifer Buckingham, from the Centre for Independent Studies, describes as “‘fundamentalist’ Christian schools.”  (Galvin Waight, 2022), 

As religious education author Marion Maddox outlines, in my interview with her, ‘Some of the philosophies underpinning these schools are far from benign yet many are receiving substantially more government funding than public schools’. (Galvin Waight, 2022) 

In December 2022 ABC Four Corners rang me with questions about my report. Most significantly, they asked who is regulating and evaluating these schools? The programs excellent investigative report aired in January 2023 and investigates the disturbing practices of Opus Dei schooling and its influence in the NSW Liberal Party. 

Reporter Louise Milligan reveals in some cases the schools are not following state curriculum. They are accused of persistent attempts to recruit teenagers to Opus Dei and of teaching misinformation about sexual health, including discouraging girls from getting the HPV cervical cancer vaccine. Former students at the elite schools reflect on the practices they say have scarred them for life, going as far as to call the schools “hell on earth.” (ABC Four Corners, 2023)   

This is why Australia’s unfair and unsecular education system must continue to be challenged. This is why Federation continues to campaign for a funding system that prioritises public schools. This is why the School Chaplaincy Program (which remains unfettered by statute and oversight and that the High Court in 2014 ruled was of no benefit to students under the law) (Galvin Waight, 2022) must also be scrapped.  

Recommendation 3 of my report calls on Federation and the AEU to reinvigorate a national campaign to replace chaplains with qualified school counsellors. For as Ron Williams (the dad who took on the government and Scripture Union QLD in the High Court and won twice), said in my interview: “Qualified school counsellors are exactly what is required we just need more of them.” (Galvin Waight, 2022) 

Making History – a secular revolution

In the early 19th century, Australians did something very special. We put aside our sectarian division, came together and created the world’s first legislated secular education system. At that time, we abolished state aid to religious schools and cemented the NSW public education system as one of the best in the world. We did this by embracing the secular.4  

Australia, once leading the world in secular education and academic results, is now falling behind on the international stage. It is no coincidence that this has occurred in the time of a sustained period of de-secularisation. A small, but organised, religious lobby has influenced our public life, institutions, and policy. This lobby has taken an active interest in public education. It is time that we, as a nation and union, take a respectful interest in religion in schools too.  

This does not mean we need to halt teaching of General Religious Education, values and world views. Yet a fear of backlash has left many politicians, teachers and members of the general public scared to come out and say what they believe. We can no longer afford to be silent and need to be ‘loud and proud’ of our secular beliefs. The groundswell of public opinion against SRE, government-funded chaplaincy and religious schools needs to become a people-power movement. For, as Australia becomes more polarised and divided on political and religious lines, embracing the secular has never been so important. 

Federation is starting this process and later this year (2023) will host an inaugural secular conference. The aim of the conference will be to raise awareness, build key alliances, highlight key campaigns and begin the secular narrative. This is important because secularism has the potential to be a unifying political and social force and a movement for social justice.  

Australia can once more lead the world in secular education and learning outcomes.  Reclaiming the secular represents an opportunity on all sides of politics to unite and embrace inclusion. It represents an opportunity to create a society in which people of all religions, and of none, can live together fairly and peacefully.  

Imagine a country where all religions are treated equally with the freedom to practise without fear of discrimination. A country where education is free of vested interests and teachers are treated and respected as the professionals that we are.  

Imagine a state: 

 • that doesn’t compromise on secular legislation where schools have the appropriate time and resources to meet all students’ needs 

 • where school children are taught about world religions by a qualified teacher as part of an inclusive, authorised curriculum  

• where the educational focus is on student outcomes and creating a vibrant, cohesive society.  

This can easily be us again. It’s time that we, as a profession, take the secular lead in NSW. Our students and society need education not indoctrination, teachers not preachers. 

Endnotes

1 This review should examine:

  • The quality, and efficacy of the lessons, instructors and providers.
  • The effects of missed teaching and learning on students and schools.
  • Departmental policy and procedures,
  •  Australian Bureau of statistics (ABS) data and
  • the collection and release of participation data on SRE/SEE, which has not occurred, despite this being a recommendation of the:
  • 1980 Rawlinson Religion in Education in NSW Government Schools Report
  • 2011 NSW Legislative Council inquiry into the Education Amendment (Ethics Classes Repeal) Bill
  • 2015 ARTD (consultancy) review of SRE and Special Ethics Education.

2 ARTD Consultancy are a consultancy firm commissioned to review SRE in 2015

3 General Religious Education is “education about the world’s major religions, what people believe and how those beliefs affect their lives”. It is taught by qualified teachers employed by the Department of Education in a safe, respectful and inclusive classroom setting..

4 For more details about the history of our secular public education system, see the link to Maurie Mulheron’s 2020 JPL article https://cpl.nswtf.org.au/journal/semester-2-2020/the-achievement-of-public-education/

ABC Four Corners (2023) Purity: An Education in Opus Day 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-15/purity:-an-education-in-opus-dei/101979020

Bleazby, J., (2022) Religious instruction in the post-truth world: A critique of Australia’s controversial religious instruction classes in public schools Sagepub.com 

Centre for Public Education Research (CPER) conference ( 2022)  Why Money Does Matter 

Galvin Waight, M. (2022). Teaching Not Preaching: Making our public schools secular NSW Teachers Federation  Available here 

NSW Education Standard Authority (2020) Nurturing Wonder and Igniting Passion : Designs for a new school curriculum. NSW Curriculum Review 

https://nswcurriculumreform.nesa.nsw.edu.au/pdfs/phase-3/final-report/NSW_Curriculum_Review_Final_Report.pdf

NSW Primary Principal Association (2022)   Position Paper SRE – SEE 

https://nswppa.org.au/position-papers

NSW Secondary Principals Council (2017) Position Paper  SRE 

Position Papers
Resources 

On Thursday 13th April 2023, Jack participated in an ABC Live radio session about the issues he raised in his article. 

If you wish to listen to him below is the link: 

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/should-religious-instruction-be-delivered-in-public-schools/102214806?utm_campaign=abc_radionational&utm_content=facebook&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_radionational

Jack Galvin Waight is author of the 2021 Eric Pearson Study Report entitled Teaching Not Preaching: Making Our Public Schools Secular. He is a Federation Country Organiser in the Hunter/Newcastle area, Vice President of Hunter Workers, Federation’s Representative on the Department’s Consultative Committee for Special Religious Education (SRE)/Special Education in Ethics (SEE) and DoE Excellence in Teaching and involvement in broader educational issues Award recipient. 

22051_Eric_Pearson_2022_WEBDownload
Making-our-public-schools-secularDownload

Local Schools, Local Decisions – A Lost Decade

Local Schools, Local Decisions – A Lost Decade

In this wide-ranging interview, Kate Ambrose, Director of the Centre for Professional Learning and Maurie Mulheron, past NSW Teachers Federation President, go deep into the history of Local Schools, Local Decisions. This policy has defined the past decade of the NSW public school system, devolving the structure of the state-wide system with detrimental effects on every school and classroom in the state. Kate and Maurie discuss the policy decisions that led to the implementation of Local Schools, Local Decisions and the ongoing ramifications on the public school system in NSW. 

Related JPL article

Local Schools, Local Decisions – A Lost Decade

Assessment: The Judicious Use of Data and Evidence

Assessment: The Judicious Use of Data and Evidence

What do data and evidence mean for you, your school, and your students? What does it mean to be data literate? What does evidence-based decision-making look like in the school context? Making meaningful use of data and evidence empowers the teacher to make informed decisions about their students’ progress based on professional judgement.

This course looks closely into different definitions of data and evidence, the different types of data that are available to teachers on a day-to-day basis, evidence-based decision making, uses and purposes of data, and how to make data fit for purpose.

Professor Jim Tognolini from the University of Sydney’s Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment will lead an interactive and content driven professional learning day. Completing this course will give you a voice in the narrative around the purposes of data and evidence in classrooms and schools. 

Please note, this course was previously called Empowering Teachers Through the Meaningful Use of Data and Evidence.

  • 17 March 2026, at NSW Teachers Federation, Surry Hills.
  • 2 September 2026 in Blacktown

All CPL courses run from 9am to 3pm.

Prof Jim Tognolini

Professor Jim Tognolini is Director of The Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment (CEMA) which is situated within the University of Sydney School of Education and Social Work. The work of the Centre is focused on the broad areas of teaching, research, consulting and professional learning for teachers.

The Centre is currently providing consultancy support to a number of schools. These projects include developing a methodology for measuring creativity; measuring 21st Century Skills; developing school-wide practice in formative assessment. We have a number of experts in the field: most notably, Professor Jim Tognolini, who in addition to conducting research offers practical and school-focused support.

Sofia Kesidou

Sofia Kesidou is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment at the University of Sydney. Her research interests include teachers’ use of assessment; professional learning to improve teachers’ assessment knowledge and practice; assessment validation and measurement of educational constructs.  Sofia was a key contributor to the development and implementation of national science, mathematics and technology standards in the United States, where she developed award-winning research-based processes for curriculum and assessment evaluation. She has held senior executive roles at the University of New South Wales and the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA), where she oversaw the development of numerous Australian and international high-stakes assessment programs, including the National Assessment Program for Science Literacy and the Higher School Certificate Examinations (HSC), as well as state curriculum reform programs. She has served on the Board of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, the Australian Music Examinations Board, and the National Assessment Online Steering Committee. She is currently a member of the NSW HSC Standards Setting Committee.

Completing Empowering Teachers Through the Meaningful Use of Data and Evidence: K-12 will contribute 5 hours of NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) Accredited PD in the priority area of Delivery and Assessment of NSW Curriculum/EYLF addressing standard descriptors 5.4.2 from the Australian professional Standards for Teachers towards maintaining Proficient Teacher Accreditation in NSW.

$220 for one day

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

“Every aspect of this course was informative and useful. I’ve had an opportunity to think about what has been presented and engage in collegial discussion.”

“I feel empowered to challenge the idea of data and evidence within my workplace and provide a different point of view that values teachers as professionals. Engaging and thought-provoking presentation”

“It was an extremely valuable PL which I will absolutely be recommending to others.”

“Jim’s passion and knowledge were very obvious and appreciated.”

Australia, Educational Lone Wolf?

Pasi Sahlberg delves into a discussion of Australia’s place in the world of education, and examines why Australia is somewhat of an outlier in that world . . .

Wolves live in extended families called packs. That helps wolves to defend their territories and ensure the protection of, and food for, the young. Cooperation is why wolves survive in harsh conditions in wilderness.

Sometimes a wolf leaves the pack and becomes a lone wolf. A lone wolf is often stronger than the others in the pack. In the wolf kingdom a lone wolf can also be a curious young adult that wants to explore new territories rather than follow the others. Sometimes it is a rebel that doesn’t get along with the rest.

In this article I wonder whether Australia has become an educational lone wolf. While Australia formally belongs to international organisations such as OECD, UNESCO, and World Economic Forum, and takes part in their education programmes, Australia is becoming an outlier in terms of the directions its education systems are heading now. A couple of decades ago the Australian education system was a role model for many others, not so much anymore. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

International lessons

Leading an education system is not easy. Since no one seems to have an answer to all the questions to which education ministers and their servants are expected to respond, closer professional cooperation and exchange of ideas between governments have become the new normal in global educational leadership. Collective search for solutions to education systems’ problems does not always succeed, but it can help to avoid adopting some bad ideas that sometimes only make things worse.

International experts have voiced their concerns that Australia might be on the wrong course if it aims to offer world class education to all children in the future. Already a decade ago Michael Fullan advised Australians by saying there is no way that ambitious and admirable nationwide goals, set out in the Melbourne Declaration, will be met with the strategies being used then. “No successful system in the world has ever led with these drivers”, Fullan (2011, 7) wrote. Last year he told Australian education leaders that a decade may have been lost due to the inability to choose the right drivers in education reforms. In September, speaking to a group of school leaders, OECD’s education director Andreas Schleicher warned Australia of the perils of the wrong way, saying we may end up training our youth to become second class robots instead of educating them to be first class humans. Both of these global authorities have deep personal understanding of Australian education.

During the last decade Australian education has had a trend of declining performance, similar to what most other OECD countries have experienced. For example, according to the latest international data, one fifth of Australian 15-year-olds miss adequate literacy skills targets needed in life (OECD, 2019). That figure reaches almost half of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Australia (ACER, 2019). Trends are similar in mathematical and scientific literacy as well. Regardless of frequent reforms and steadily increased total expenditure on education, learning outcomes remain stagnant or decline.

We can change the course but not with the same logic that has caused this inconvenient situation. This would be easier through policy learning in closer collaboration with other education nations.

Living without a pack

Recent educational literature and research describes, in detail, various aspects of the state of Australian education today (Bonnor et al., 2021; Burns and McIntyre, 2017; Netolicky et al. 2019; Reid, 2020). Contemporary issues and challenges in professional publications are clear and commonly accepted among education practitioners, experts, and academics. These issues and challenges include, but are not limited to, school funding, systemic educational inequalities, and an inadequate initial teacher education system. It is good to keep in mind that we are not alone with these challenges; many other countries are trying to solve these same problems, too.

The problem is not that we wouldn’t know enough about what is behind the declining educational performance in Australia during the past two decades. There is no shortage of reviews, evaluations, declarations, and commission reports about the education system and how it is not working the way it should. The problem is that we are not good at turning these findings and recommendations into new practices that would eventually make education better.

The real issue is that during the past decade Australia has become a passive member in an increasingly vibrant international community of education system leaders. One such global platform is the International Summit on the Teaching Profession (ISTP) that was launched in 2011 by the OECD and Education International (EI) as a response to emerging problems such as teacher shortages, initial teacher education, and professionalism in the teaching profession (Edwards and Schleicher, 2021). ISTP is a high-level invitation-only policy forum for the world’s best-performing education systems. Delegates, that must include a nation’s education minister and the head of national teacher association (i.e., Australian Education Union), take two days to explore current issues in the teaching profession and discuss solutions to current issues and challenges, such as teacher shortages and initial teacher education.  

Australia has been invited to attend these summits since the beginning. Every time, it has declined to attend. A decade of valuable opportunities to learn from others and build professional and political relationships has been wasted. In absence of these professional and policy dialogues, the perspective to the challenges we try to work out becomes narrower. At the same time, Australian schools and educators would have a lot to offer to their peers in other countries. It seems like we are a lone wolf in global education.

How are Australian schools different?

In many ways Australian schools are like schools anywhere in the OECD. In most education statistics (whether is about class sizes, curricula, or how much is spent on education) Australia is like most others (OECD, 2022). There are, however, some aspects where schools here are very different from most others. These are all issues that beg the question: What do these differences mean in practice?

Here is a brief description of three things that make Australian school system an outlier among the OECD community.

1. Total number of compulsory instruction hours for children during primary and lower secondary education

Around the world, children start primary education typically when they are six years old. They then continue schooling in lower secondary and upper secondary schools. Overseas, the total length of school education is about 12 years, in Australia it is 13 years. The school year includes normally 36 to 40 weeks (or 180 to 200 schooldays). Comparing compulsory instruction hours, that students in different countries are required to attend during primary and lower secondary education, reveals the whole picture See Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Compulsory instruction time in general education in hours in public primary and lower secondary schools

 Source: OECD (2021)

According to Figure 1, primary and lower secondary education in OECD countries, lasts on average, 7,638 instruction hours during 9 years of schooling. In Finland, for example, that time is 6,384 over 9 years of schooling. Australian students have a total of 11 years of primary and lower secondary education that equals to 11,060 instruction hours (OECD, 2021). That is more than in any other OECD country. Schooldays in primary education in other OECD countries are often significantly shorter compared to Australia. Again, children spend more time in primary school in Australia than their peers in Finland, Estonia, or South Korea spend in primary and lower secondary education combined.

What does that mean in practice? Some might expect that because Australian students spend so much more time in school by the age of 15, their academic outcomes in OECD’s PISA or other international assessments must be much better than students in Korea, Estonia, or Finland. But that is not so. There is no correlation between students’ instruction time and academic performance in school.

2. Distribution of public and private expenditure on primary and secondary schools

Education is not cheap. Governments in OECD countries allocate 10 to 15 per cent of their national budgets to education. There are different ways to compare how much – or little – countries around the world spend on educating their youth. One common indicator is total expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary institutions as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Total spending in OECD countries on primary, secondary, and post-secondary non-tertiary education institutions, on average, is 3.5 per cent of GDP as Figure 2 shows.

Figure 2. Total expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP by source of funds

Source: OECD (2021)

Education is quite expensive in Australia, too. Total spending on school education in Australia according to Figure 2, is about 4 per cent of GDP that is significantly more than the average spending in OECD countries. What makes Australia different in this club of world’s wealthiest nations is the share of funding that parents pay for their children’s education. At primary and secondary education, private spending from parents’ pockets accounts for 0.3% of GDP across OECD countries. In Australia it amounts to at least 0.7% of GDP that is one of the largest relative shares of private funding of primary and secondary education among all OECD countries.

In other words, private spending accounts for 10% of expenditure at primary and secondary education on average across OECD countries, but it reaches 20% in Australia (OECD, 2020).

Australia is also an outlier in terms of the relatively high proportion of students, in primary and secondary education, who attend non-government schools. Now, that figure is about 35 per cent, being higher among secondary school-aged students especially in urban areas where there is more choice (ABS, 2022). What it means to have public education has become a different question in Australia compared to many other rich countries.

3. Proportion of disadvantaged children attending schools where the majority of students are disadvantaged

Parents’ right to choose the suitable school for their children has been part of the global education reform movement since the 1990s (Sahlberg, 2016). This has served well some parents and their children but has led to growing segregation of schools by the socio-economic conditions of students. Market mechanisms don’t always work in education as expected. Absence of intelligent regulation of education markets have led many countries to see increasing number of disadvantaged students attending schools where most students are disadvantaged like them. Figure 3 illustrates what the situation was in 2018.

Figure 3. Proportion of disadvantaged students attending schools where the majority of students are disadvantaged in OECD countries

Source: OECD (2018)

There are only four other OECD countries where larger proportion of disadvantaged students are studying in schools where the majority of students are disadvantaged. In Australia, based on OECD data shown in Figure 3, that figure is 52 per cent. This is a consequence of education policies in Australia during the last two decades that have treated education as a marketplace where parental choice determines supply and demand of schooling. OECD’s (2018) analysis has revealed that when a disadvantaged student attends a school where the majority of students are not disadvantaged, by the age of 15 that student will be, educationally speaking, approximately 2.5 years ahead of students who attend schools where the majority of students are disadvantaged.

Where next?

Being a lone wolf may be good if the rest of the pack is heading in the wrong direction. But, if you are alone surrounded by challenges and have lost a way to go, being without a pack may become difficult. Navigating in the wilderness alone can be difficult and risky. Solving wicked problems with others often leads to better solutions.

In 2022, Australia has a new federal government and many of its jurisdictions are electing new parliaments soon. One good decision the ministers and their education system leaders could make is to return to international education policy dialogues. There are many good opportunities to learn how other countries deal with the teacher shortages or modernise initial teacher education to better meet the needs of future schools, for example.

Every year, since 2011, the OECD and Education International have organised the International Summit on the Teaching Profession with the world’s top-performing education systems. Here education ministers and education leaders from the top 20 education nations explore current issues and innovation in the teaching profession. Collaboration between ministers and teachers’ unions as well as genuine policy learning between the nations are the key principles of these summits. Minister Jason Clare could attend in the 2023 summit that will be hosted by the Biden administration in Washington DC. This is perhaps the best next opportunity to learn what could be improved in the current federal government’s action plan and in teacher policies across the country. All ‘education nations’ are there, why wouldn’t we be?

Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) (2019). PISA 2018. Reporting Australia’s Results. Vol. 1. Student Performance. https:// research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/35/.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2022). Schools. Data on students, staff, schools, rates and ratios for government and non-government schools, for all Australian states and territories. Retrieved on 10 October from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release.

Bonnor, C., Kidson, P., Piccoli, A., Sahlberg, P. & Wilson, R. (2021). Structural Failure: Why Australia keeps falling short of its educational goals. Sydney: UNSW Gonski Institute.

Burns, D. and McIntyre, A. (2017). Empowered Educators in Australia: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Edwards, D. And Schleicher, A. (2021). 10 years of ISTP – what governments and unions can achieve together. Education International. Retrieved on 6 October from https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/23380:10-years-of-istp-what-governments-and-unions-can-achieve-together-by-andreas-schleicher-and-david-edwards

Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing wrong drivers for whole system reform (Seminar series 204). Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Strategic Education.

Netolicky, D., Andrews, J., and Paterson, C. (Eds.) (2019). Flip the system Australia – What matters in education. London: Routledge.

OECD (2018). Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. Paris:OECD Publishing.

OECD (2021). Education at a glance. Education indicators. Paris:OECD Publishing.

OECD (2022). Education at a glance. Education indicators. Paris:OECD Publishing.

Reid, A. (2020). Changing Australian Education: How policy is taking us backwards and what can be done about it. London: Routledge.

Sahlberg, P. (2016). Global Educational Reform Movement and its impact on teaching. In Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, R., and Verger, A. (Eds.) The Handbook of Global Policy and Policymaking in Education. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 128-144.

Pasi Sahlberg is a Finnish educator, former schoolteacher, and award-winning author who has lifelong career in education. His books and essays about education are translated into 30 languages and read around the world.

 Pasi is recipient of several honours and awards for his work for education as human right, including 2012 Education Award in Finland, 2014 Robert Owen Award in Scotland, 2016 Lego Prize in Denmark, and 2021 Dr Paul Brock memorial Medal in NSW.

His research interests include education policy and reform, equity in education, international education issues, and school improvement. He is Professor of Education at the Southern Cross University in Lismore, visiting professor at the UNSW Business School, and Adjunct Professor at the Universities of Helsinki and Oulu in Finland. Pasi lives in Lennox Head with his wife and two sons.


An-Educational-Lone-Wolf-Pasi-SahlbergDownload

Local Schools, Local Decisions – A Lost Decade

Local Schools, Local Decisions – A Lost Decade
Maurie Mulheron gives us all an insight into the effects that Local Schools, Local Decisions has had on education in NSW. . .

In a choreographed media conference outside a public high school in western Sydney on Sunday 11 March 2012, the NSW Government announced Local Schools, Local Decisions (LSLD) with the Premier and Minister for Education flanked by representatives of two principal groups. It was a plan purporting to ‘empower’ schools. But the evidence is that a far more sinister ulterior purpose, which had been some years in the planning, was driving the policy.

The issue of ‘school autonomy’ is hardly new. It has been an article of faith for many conservative politicians and some economists around the world since the 1970s. It has its origins in a neo-liberal economic theory that public provision is wasteful and ineffective, government expenditure should be reduced, taxation should be lowered and that the more competitive the environment in which government services operate the more efficient they will become. It is a theory that is applied to all aspects of public sector management. ‘School autonomy’ is not an idea relating to teaching and learning that was developed by teachers or education theorists. Its origins and purpose are based in economics and finance.

This is why two international management consultant and accountancy corporations were engaged by the NSW Treasury between October 2009 and January 2010 to conduct a detailed financial audit of the NSW Department of Education and Training (DET), the first NSW government agency to submit to the process. In time this would provide Treasury with the economic rationale for LSLD.

The overarching work was undertaken by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) which was contracted “…to undertake a scan of DET expenditure and to develop a methodology that will allow Treasury to undertake future scans of other agencies.” Its purpose was to achieve significant financial savings. The January 2010 BCG document was called Expenditure Review of the Department of Education and Training (DET) – Initial Scan.i

The second corporation engaged at the time to undertake complementary work was Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC).  Its December 2009 report, DET School-based employee related costs review – Interim Report was also prepared for the NSW Cabinet. While the BCG scan dealt with all the operations of the Department, the PWC report dealt specifically with staffing costs. As stated in its objectives, the report was to “…review areas of expenditure relating to DET’s School-based employees where there is scope for change and recommend actions to reduce DET’s expenditure in these areas.”ii

SECRET CABINET DOCUMENTS LEAKED

Both of these Cabinet-in-Confidence documents were never meant to be seen by the community or the teaching profession. However, in the lead-up to the March 2011 state election they came into the possession of the NSW Teachers Federation which, in response, reiterated the union’s concerns that ‘school autonomy’ models had seriously weakened public provision of education. The evidence for this had been mounting overseas for many years. In Australia, during the 1990s the Victorian Liberal Government instigated a dramatic experiment in devolution through the passing of the Education (Self-Governing Schools) Act (1998). It was later repealed by an incoming Labor Government but not before it had seen Victoria’s performance on governments’ benchmarks for achievement, the international PISA testing program, fall below the Australian average in all tested areas – reading, mathematics, and science.iii

In the week leading up to the 2011 NSW state election, the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) revealed the intent of the secret BCG and PWC reports.iv “The shock comes not so much from the report’s far-reaching findings – which cut deep – but in the way it has been kept secret for so long. The deception used to get hard-working principals and teachers to, in effect, do the dirty work, will strike them as a betrayal.”v

And the betrayal was clearly articulated in the BCG report, “We have identified some quick wins, but have focused mostly on identifying the major opportunities to drive significant savings over time.”

To achieve this the BCG, throughout the review, argued the merits of the devolved school autonomy model of Victoria and, indeed, used Victoria as the benchmark. It noted that “NSW appears to have approximately 9000 more ‘in-school’ staff than Victoria”, also arguing that “NSW appears to have 13% more school related staff than Victoria”, and that “NSW appears to have 12% more non-teaching staff than Victoria.” The review goes on to argue that once the model of devolution similar to Victoria is adopted, “DET should aim to capture as much of this gap [in staffing levels] as possible.”vi

In essence, the BCG review argued that cost cutting through devolution could provide, “opportunities … worth $500-$700 million in recurrent costs and $800-$1000 million in one-off benefits.” The BCG review even advised how the devolved model could be sold to the public, “Possible to position these initiatives as part of a broader school regeneration or schools for the future program.”vii

What was becoming clear was that the NSW Treasury was determined to reduce the number of employees across the NSW public education system, and this was the focus of the second scan undertaken by PWC. The strategy was to ensure principals delivered the savings. Indeed, one section was labelled, “Empower Principals to act” where the report states, “We believe that increasing Principal accountability for managing School-based costs should be focused on driving a positive financial impact in the short to medium term while also maintaining educational outcomes.”viii

REPORTS REJECTED THEN DUSTED OFF

These two reports could easily be dismissed, as they were provided to the NSW Cabinet in the final months of the Labor administration, with an impending March 2011 state election. It should be noted that the extreme nature of the reports’ recommendations led the then Labor Education Minister to shelve both of them. However, they cannot be so easily ignored as both reports by these two corporations were to inform, and were referenced in, the incoming NSW Coalition Government’s Commission of Audits, one released as an Interim Report into Public Sector Managementix in late January 2012 and the Final Report: Government Expenditurex published in May 2012. Indeed, in the latter paper, there are 64 references to the benefits of devolution as a means of achieving efficiencies across the whole of government.

The NSW Commission of Audit Final Report of May 2012 stated,

“For many years financial management in NSW has been confusing, lacking in transparency and below the standards expected of efficient and effective government. This situation is not sustainable.”

The answer, it argued, is that,

“The devolution of authority and accountability, specifically in the areas of education and health, means expenditure (and power) must move from the centre to more local units.”

“The Commission is generally of the view that devolution should not increase expenditure in aggregate though capabilities and systems will need attention at the start. Expenditure in local units should however increase and be offset by reductions at the centre. These are exciting reforms that offer a new era for TAFE, more power and responsibility to school principals, and more community and clinician input and responsibility within Health.”xi


THE 47 SCHOOL TRIAL

Running parallel to the work that BCG and PWC was undertaking from October 2009 until January 2010, was a devolution trial involving 47 schools called the School-Based Management Pilot which was to test some of the key BCG and PWC concepts, notably as to whether local decision-making could produce savings similar to those captured in Victorian schools. This trial, which also began in late 2009, had originally been planned to end in 2010, but continued through to late 2011. Just a few weeks later in January 2012, the Final Report of the Evaluation of the School-Based Management Pilot was released.xii

Even though the justification for the 47 schools trial model was that it would bring about a lift in student achievement, in the final report evaluating the trial the entire section on student results was a mere 85 words in length in a document that ran to 92 pages. However, this should not have been of any surprise as there was no baseline academic data collected at the beginning of the trial, nor any other key data such as that regarding student suspensions, behaviour referrals, attendance, staff turnover. In fact, the only data collected by the NSW Department of Education related to student enrolments, data that is collected from every school annually. This revealed that, for the duration of the trial, 21 of the 47 schools lost enrolments. But this data was excluded from the final report. Instead, the evaluation based its positive findings on scant empirical evidence relying on anecdotal and subjective observations which included supposed comments of four different principals who all uttered almost identical phrases: “This has created a positive buzz in the school”; “[There’s] a buzz about the school in the town”; “Another principal reports ‘a buzz around the school in the community’”; “and there is a buzz about the school in town.” Four different principals all commenting on a perceived “buzz”. However, this woefully inadequate evaluation did not prevent the new Coalition Education Minister mentioning the trial’s “success” as a key justification for the introduction of LSLD.

The true purpose of the 47 schools trial was made clear in the earlier BCG report which revealed that the quarantined devolution model had led to savings of $15-25 million.xiii Later in the BCG report it was argued, “To capture savings from devolution requires more than the current rollout of the current [47 schools] trial. Current trial involves additional costs that will need to be phased out (e.g., to cover higher than average staff costs in some schools) and does not yet address staffing implications at the State and Regional Office.”xiv The “additional costs” were the significant additional funding each of the 47 schools received from the Department, in effect a temporary financial sweetener that would ensure a positive evaluation. It was only the BCG report that exposed that there was no intention to maintain this level of funding support beyond the trial. Towards the end of the BCG report the strategic thinking behind the trial was exposed: “[Must] test and measure impact and risk of devolved model(s) to prove concept. Assess risks and put in place any mitigation strategies to manage them.”xv

When LSLD was announced in March 2012, it was marketed as an education policy. This was the first of many falsehoods promulgated by the Government. There was no mention of the Boston Consulting Group report of 2010; no mention of the Price Waterhouse Coopers report; and no mention of the NSW Commission of Audit Reports of 2012 either. Nor did the Government ever reveal the real purpose of the 47 schools trial.

In fact, it was not the Minister for Education who was first to announce the LSLD policy. Instead, it was the NSW Treasurer who, in September 2011 when delivering his first budget, revealed “[The] Government plans to reform government schools by giving them more authority to make local decisions that better meet the needs of their students and communities.” This announcement could be found in the budget papers under the section “Delivering on structural fiscal and economic reform.”xvi

In reality, LSLD was always going to be about expenditure and the efficiency savings that could be secured, “There is considerable scope in NSW to reallocate expenditure in education and training to improve outcomes, through greater devolution of resource allocation decisions to principals and TAFE Institute Directors. This can occur within existing expenditure budgets.”xvii It is worth noting that the findings of the BCG report regarding the savings that could be accrued through devolution were referenced in the 2012 NSW Commission of Audit report.

So, what did the NSW Commission of Audit’s recommended ‘reductions at the centre’, a critical feature of Local Schools, Local Decisions, mean in practice? It is important to revisit the NSW Treasury’s demand on the Department of Education at the time.

Savings measures had to be identified by the Department in the 2011-2012 NSW budget to cover the four-year budget period up to 2015-2016. These measures were implemented as “general expenses in the education and communities portfolio have still outstripped the growth in government revenue”.xviii

The Department needed to find $201 million in savings from the 2012-2013 budget and $1.7 billion over the four year forward estimates period. The measures also included the 2.5 per cent labour expense cap, as detailed in the NSW Public Sector Wages Policy which had been reinforced by changes to the NSW Industrial Relations Act.

The savings demanded of the Department were introduced at the same time that Local Schools, Local Decisions was rolled out. In reality the ‘reductions at the centre’ resulted in a significant and unprecedented loss of positions from the Department, both public servant and non-school based teaching positions. And this, not a lift in student outcomes, was the primary objective of Local Schools, Local Decisions.

Ken Dixon, the general manager of finance and administration within the NSW Department of Education at the time, later described the policy to give principals more autonomy over school budgets as being driven by cost savings. In public comments he argued, “The Local Schools, Local Decisions policy is just a formula to pull funding from schools over time.” Mr Dixon, in a key senior Departmental position at the time the policy of Local Schools, Local Decisions was being developed, also revealed that the loss of at least 1600 jobs in the Department was factored into the business case. xix

The ‘reductions at the centre’ included the loss of hundreds of non-school based teachers and support staff from programs throughout NSW including from curriculum support, professional development, staffing, drug and alcohol education, student welfare, student behaviour, community liaison, staff welfare, the equity unit, rural education, assessment and reporting, special education, and multicultural education. In essence, the capacity for the Department to initiate and fund system-wide support for teachers was decimated. To this day, the Department of Education has not been able to rebuild any significant systemic support.

6 MONTHS ON: THE CUTS ARE CONFIRMED

From the day that LSLD had been announced, the NSW Teachers Federation had opposed it, providing the evidence to members and the public that had been revealed to the union in the leaked BCG and PWC reports. An intense state-wide campaign was instigated. The union had been researching ‘school autonomy’ from at least 1988, prompted by the Metherell crisis. It had also studied closely the impact of devolution in other jurisdictions including Victoria, New Zealand and the UK. And there had been more recent experiences of ‘school autonomy’ policies that had been imposed in NSW.

Just a few years earlier in 2008, the Federation had been involved in a bitter and protracted industrial dispute with the NSW government over staffing including the loss of service transfer rights for teachers. The concern was the dramatic negative consequences for difficult to staff schools in outer metropolitan and rural areas. In a fax sent to all schools by the Federation at the time in the lead up to a 24-hour strike, the union showed remarkable prescience in sounding a warning that, “[The Government’s procedures will] establish the preconditions for the full deregulation agenda as in Victoria. Federation is in no doubt that if the NSW government succeeds in destroying the state-wide teacher transfer system that the next step is to introduce devolved staffing budgets to schools which include teacher and non-teacher salaries.”xx Just four years later this was now a fundamental element of the LSLD model.

It was also in the area of special education that the NSW government had instigated a devolved funding model which had been trialled in the Illawarra in 2011 and implemented across the state in 2012. This new method of allocating funding had been foreshadowed in the BCG report which stated that there was potential savings of up to $100 million from the “fast growing special education area”. Once again, comparing NSW to Victoria, the BCG report argued, “Victoria introduced reform initiatives in 2005 which stemmed growth of special education and suggests a broad opportunity exists to streamline NSW special education/equity programs”.xxi The scheme was promoted to the community as Every Student, Every School but it was clear that not every student in every school would receive the support they needed. The reduction in centralised support, for instance, led to funding cuts for thousands of students with autism and mental health concerns who were excluded from the Integration Funding Support program.xxii

It was not until 11 September of 2012, six months after the LSLD announcement, that the intention to dramatically cut funding to the school system and TAFE was finally revealed by the then NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell – a decision he described as “difficult but necessary”. The total amount of education funding to be cut amounted to $1.7 billion, almost the exact figure to the dollar that the BCG and PWC reports had recommended could be achieved through devolving budgets to local principals and TAFE institute managers. Also confirmed in the announcement was the loss of a total of 1800 non-school based teaching and support staff positions from Department offices – from the centre and from regional offices. This was a similar number to the total that Ken Dixon had explained had been factored into the LSLD “business case”.xxiii

For months following the March 2012 public release of the LSLD policy, the Federation had been attacked by the Government which accused the union of lying to the profession about the intention to cut funding. But even though it was now vindicated, the Federation still found the news of the $1.7 billion cuts grim. Earlier, in response to the LSLD announcement, it had called all members out on strike, firstly in May 2012 for a two-hour stoppage, and later in June for a 24-hour strike.

While not preventing the full impact of the cuts to education, the strikes did achieve some important protections, at least for public school teachers. In response to the industrial action, the Department withdrew the plan to provide all schools with an actual staffing budget, making it notional instead. A school’s staffing entitlement, which was to be replaced by an unregulated principal’s choice of the ‘mix and number’ of staff, was also protected.

The Commission of Audit had declared that all staff ratios were to be removed from industrial agreements, citing NSW public school class sizes as the first example. “The Commission of Audit agrees that some workforce management policies and input controls are managerial prerogatives and should not be incorporated into awards…Examples are:​ teacher to pupil ratios…”xxiv

A public campaign in the lead-up to the strikes led to references to class sizes reconfirmed in subsequent industrial agreements. Finally, the plan to abolish the incremental pay scale was also withdrawn.

GONSKI – A POLITICAL LIFELINE

Following a long campaign led by the Australian Education Union, and strongly supported by the NSW Teachers Federation, a Federal Labor Government announced a comprehensive inquiry into schools funding in April 2010. The inquiry team was chaired by David Gonski whose name would become synonymous with the subsequent report delivered to government in November 2011. But it was not until 20 February 2012 that the report was released publicly. By April the following year, the Federal Government announced a new national $14.5 billion schools funding model. The funding was to be delivered over a six-year transition period from 2014 to 2019 with two-thirds of the funding to be provided in the final two years.

At its heart was the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS), effectively the minimum level of funding a school needed to have the vast majority of its students meet national outcomes. In essence, the more complex a school’s student profile, the greater level of funding it would attract, noting in the case of NSW public schools, the additional funding would be provided to the system to distribute on a needs basis. 

On 23 April 2013, NSW became the first state to sign a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth, less than seven months after the announcement of the $1.7 billion cuts at the state level. In reality, the Gonski funding model was seen by the then NSW Education Minister as a political lifeline. The NSW Department of Education was faced with a serious contradiction. On the one hand, it had built a financial model to implement LSLD, but which was designed to de-fund the system in order to deliver $1.7 billion in savings. From 2014, however, there would be additional money provided to schools. But it soon became a case of a wasted opportunity. None of the additional recurrent funding could be used for any significant and much needed whole of system improvement. Improvements such as reduced class sizes, which for junior primary and lower secondary schools had not been reduced in many decades, nor for a reduction in face-to-face loads which also had not improved in decades. Indeed, there was little funding retained by the Department at the centre to rebuild the programs that had been decimated back in 2012. In other words, the government had squandered the opportunity to capitalise on a key advantage of the public education system which is its capacity to achieve massive economies of scale.

In a crude attempt to engender support for LSLD, the Department deliberately attempted to link LSLD with the additional Gonski funding in schools, as though the BCG and PWC audits, the Commission of Audit reports, the Public Sector Wages Policy, and the demand of the NSW government for departments to reduce labour expenses every year had not occurred. This re-writing of the history led to the Department’s Centre for Educational Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) developing a survey instrument that linked the two disparate variables — LSLD and additional funding. But neither of these variables, the system wide change to governance and the increase in Commonwealth and State funding, was dependent on the other. So, to conflate them in the first evaluation question where each variable is portrayed as being interdependent was a serious error, offending a basic tenet of research methodology. In response, the Federation raised the fundamental question as to exactly what was being evaluated: a change to the governance model of the public school system announced in March 2012 or the additional funding achieved two years later in 2014 through the National Education Reform Agreement (NERA).

LOST OPPORTUNITY

The additional funding had been allocated to individual schools untied, with little guidelines, minimal accountability and almost no programmatic system-wide support. Little wonder that even CESE’s Local Schools, Local Decisions Evaluation – Interim Report stated “…we were unable to determine…what each school’s [Resource Allocation Model] RAM equity loading allocation was spent on.”xxv

Firstly, the devolution model was never designed to make funding information transparent. Indeed, it was designed to do the exact opposite, make funding matters more opaque. This was because the devolution model was expressly designed for twin purposes: deliver savings back to central government and allow governments to shift the responsibility for these savings to local managers. It was only ever intended to give local schools the illusion of control.

Secondly, the model was never designed to distribute and manage significant increases in funding. There now existed no comprehensive systemic and state-wide programmes designed to lift student outcomes across all schools: “In terms of differential change over time, we found no relationship between changes over time in these engagement measures and levels of need, with the notable exception that students in higher-need schools typically showed less positive change over time in levels of social engagement than students in lower-need schools. In other words, the gap in this measure between higher-need and lower-need schools increased over time, rather than decreased.” [Author’s emphasis]xxvi

CRITICAL VOICES IGNORED

Over the years, there has been a tendency for government departments, like the NSW Department of Education, to declare that policies are developed from ‘evidence-based decision-making’. Yet, in the case of Local Schools, Local Decisions, this assertion must be contested. Moreover, it may actually be a case that the declaration of ‘evidence’ is a strategy to shut down debate, noting that very little in education policy, practice and theory exists without competing points of view.

The extreme Local Schools, Local Decisions policy was implemented dishonestly. Its true intentions were hidden from the profession with critical voices and available research ignored. In relation to ‘school autonomy’ models John Smyth believes, “Sometimes an educational idea is inexplicably adopted around the world with remarkable speed and consistency and in the absence of a proper evidence base or with little regard or respect for teachers, students or learning.”xxvii

In his essay, The disaster of the ‘self-managing school’ – genesis, trajectory, undisclosed agenda, and effects, Professor Smyth went on to argue that ‘school autonomy’ in reality is government “…steering at a distance, while increasing control through a range of outcomes-driven performance indicators.”

Further he said, “The argument was that schools would be freed up from the more burdensome aspects of bureaucratic control, and in the process allowed to be more flexible and responsive, with decisions being able to be made closer to the point of learning. Many of these claims have proven to be illusory, fictitious, and laughable to most practising school educators.”

Dr Ken Boston, one of the members of the Review of Funding for Schooling panel chaired by David Gonski, expressed frustration at the continuing promotion of devolution, arguing that “. . . school autonomy is an irrelevant distraction. I worked in England for nine years, where every government school . . . has the autonomy of the independent public schools in WA – governing boards that can hire and fire head teachers and staff, determine salaries and promotions, and so on. Yet school performance in England varies enormously from school to school, and from region to region, essentially related to aggregated social advantage in the south of the country and disadvantage in the north.”xxviii

Plank and Smith in their paper, Autonomous Schools: Theory, Evidence and Policy, argued, “Placing schools at the centre of the policy frame, freeing them from bureaucracy and exhorting them to do better has not by itself generated many of the systemic improvements, innovation, or productivity gains that policy makers hoped for.”xxix

Professor Steven Dinham from the University of Melbourne acknowledged the lack of evidence for ‘school autonomy’ models: “The theory that greater school autonomy will lead to greater flexibility, innovation and therefore student attainment is intuitively appealing and pervasive. School autonomy has become something of an article of faith. However, establishing correlation and causation is not so easy.” Dinham says, “What is needed above all however, is clear research evidence that the initiative works, and under what conditions, rather than blind enthusiasm for the concept.”xxx

‘School autonomy’ was responsible for a “lost decade” in education according to one of New Zealand’s leading education researchers Dr Cathy Wylie formerly of the New Zealand Council of Educational Research (NZCER). In her book, Vital Connections: Why We Need More Than Self-Managing Schoolsxxxi, Wylie argued that schools in NZ needed more central support, and that devolution had caused the loss of ‘vital connections’ between schools.

Even the OECD was ignored.  In its 2009 PISA cross-country correlation analysis, PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? – Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV) the OECD authors argued that “. . . greater responsibility in managing resources appears to be unrelated to a school system’s overall student performance” and that “… school autonomy in resource allocation is not related to performance at the system level.”xxxii

And yet, this OECD report was released three years before the 2012 NSW Commission of Audit argued enthusiastically for a devolution model (sold later as Local Schools, Local Decisions).

A decade on, the catastrophic policy failure of Local Schools, Local Decisions is clear. The findings of the Department’s own research body, CESE, amplify this:

  • “To date, LSLD appears to have had little impact on preliminary outcome measures.”
  • “These results suggest that LSLD has not had a meaningful impact on attendance or suspensions.”
  • “However, the direction of the relationship was not as we expected: students in higher-need schools showed less growth in social engagement than students in lower-need schools.”xxxiii

So, what has occurred after this lost decade? No lift in student outcomes, the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged widening, a massive increase in casual and temporary positions in schools, no improvements in attendance, no improvement in suspension rates, no lessening of ‘red-tape’, a dramatic increase in workload, growing teacher shortages, and the salary cap still in place. The paradox is, of course, that the more localised the decision-making, the more onerous, punitive and centrally controlled are the accountability measures.

The Local Schools, Local Decisions policy has left the NSW Department with no levers; no capacity to develop, fund and implement systemic improvements to lift all schools or to achieve massive economies of scale. Purportedly, the bulk of funding is in school bank accounts with the Department unable to determine what it is being spent on. Instead, we are left with policy by anecdote as revealed in the comments quoted within the CESE evaluation.

The tragedy of Local Schools, Local Decisions is that its structure remains in place, even if its name has changed. By 2021, the NSW Department had realised that LSLD had failed public schools, their teachers, and their students. It had also failed the community of NSW. Addicted to policy by alliteration, the Department rebadged it as the School Success Model (SSM). But this title reveals the continuing mind-set of both the Government and the Department. If we have learnt anything from the last decade it is that schemes like LSLD are essentially a cover for a government to abrogate its obligation to all children, all teachers, and all public schools. Instead, what is needed is for the NSW government, through its department, to accept it has an onus to provide systemic programmatic support rather than devolve the risk and responsibilities onto individual schools. Finally, the time to listen to and accept the advice of the teaching profession, and for the powerful, politically connected accountancy firms to be dismissed, is long overdue.

i Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Expenditure Review of the Department of Education and Training (DET) – Initial Scan (2010) pp 188-193

ii PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PWC) DET School-based employee related costs review – Interim Report (2009) p2

iii AEU (VIC) Submission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission Inquiry into School Devolution and Accountability (2012) p2

iv Anna Patty SMH Secret cuts to schools (19 March 2011)

v Anna Patty SMH Secret report administers a shock to the system (19 March 2011)

vi BCG op.cit. pp 188-193

vii BCG op. cit. p92

viii PWC op. cit. p18

ix NSW Commission of Audit Interim Report into Public Sector Management (January 2012)

x NSW Commission of Audit Final Report: Government Expenditure (May 2012)

xi NSW Commission of Audit op. cit.  p10

xii NSW DET Final Report of the Evaluation of the School-Based Management Pilot (2012)

xiii BCG op. cit. p13

xiv BCG op. cit. p34

xv BCG op. cit. p146

xvi NSW State Budget Papers 2. 1- 14-15

xvii NSW Commission of Audit Op. cit. p71

xviii NSW Department of Education and Communities Saving measures to meet our budget (2011)

xix Anna Patty SMH Tip of the iceberg: warning 1200 more education jobs to go (14 September 2012)

xx NSW Teachers Federation fax to all schools (13 May 2008)

xxi BCG op. cit. p58 and p150

xxii “Reform funding on need” in Education (NSWTF) (16 August 2022)

xxiii Anna Patty SMH NSW to slash $1.7 billion from education funding (11 September 2012)

xxiv NSW Commission of Audit: Public Sector Management p83 (24 January 2012)​

xxv Centre for Education Statistics And Evaluation (CESE) LSLD Evaluation Interim Report (July 2018) p8

xxvi CESE Op. cit. p8

xxvii John Smyth The disaster of the ‘self‐managing school’ – genesis, trajectory, undisclosed agenda, and effects Journal of Educational Administration and History 43(2):95-117 (May 2011)

xxviii Quoted in Education Vol 97 No 7 Maurie Mulheron On Evidence Based Decision-Making 7 November 2016

xxix David N Plank and BetsAnn Smith Autonomous Schools: Theory, Evidence and Policy in Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy Helen F. Ladd and Edward Fiske (eds) (2007)

xxx Stephen Dinham The Worst of Both Worlds: How the US and UK Are Influencing Education in Australia Journal of Professional Learning (Semester 1 2016)

xxxi Cathy Wylie Vital Connections: Why We Need More Than Self-Managing Schools (2012)

xxxii OECD PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? – Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV) (2010)

xxxiii CESE Op. cit. p53, p51, p51

Australian Education Union (AEU  Victoria ) (2012)  Submission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission Inquiry into School Devolution and Accountability

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) (2010) Expenditure Review of the Department of Education and Training (DET) – Initial Scan

Centre for Education Statistics And Evaluation (CESE) (July 2018) LSLD Evaluation Interim Report

Dinham, S., (2016) The Worst of Both Worlds: How the US and UK Are Influencing Education in Australia Journal of Professional Learning (Semester 1 2016)

Gonski , D et al (2011)  Review of Funding for Schooling Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR)

OECD (2010) PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? – Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV)

Patty, A., (19 March 2011) Secret cuts to schools Sydney Morning Herald

Patty, A., (19 March 2011) Secret report administers a shock to the system Sydney Morning Herald

Patty, A., (11 September 2012) Tip of the iceberg: warning 1200 more education jobs to go Sydney Morning Herald

Patty, A.,(14 September 2012) NSW to slash $1.7 billion from education funding Sydney Morning Herald

Plank, D N. and Smith, B., (2007)  Autonomous Schools: Theory, Evidence and Policy in Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy Helen F. Ladd and Edward Fiske (eds)

PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PWC) (2009) DET School-based employee related costs review – Interim Report

Smyth, J., (May 2011)The disaster of the ‘self‐managing school’ – genesis, trajectory, undisclosed agenda, and effects

Journal of Educational Administration and History 43(2):95-117

NSW Commission of Audit (January 2012) Interim Report into Public Sector Management

NSW Commission of Audit (May 2012) Final Report: Government Expenditure

Wylie, C.,(2012) Vital Connections: Why We Need More Than Self-Managing Schools

Maurie Mulheron was a teacher for 34 years, including 10 years as a high school principal. Throughout his working life he was an active member of the NSW Teachers Federation (NSWTF) for which he was awarded Life Membership.

In 2011 he was elected President of the NSWTF, taking up the position in 2012, and serving four terms until 2020.

Between 2016-2020, he was also Deputy Federal President of the Australian Education Union, to which he was awarded Life Membership in 2020.

Maurie played a central role in the schools funding, salaries, staffing and save TAFE campaigns throughout this period.

Internationally, Maurie has been active in the global campaign opposing the growing influence of corporate ‘edu-businesses’ and their attempts to commercialise and privatise public education.

Maurie is currently Director of the Centre for Public Education Research (CPER).

Local-Schools-Local-Decisions-Maurie-MulheronDownload

Posts navigation

Older posts
Newer posts

Recent Posts

    Recent Comments

    No comments to show.

    Archives

    No archives to show.

    Categories

    • No categories

    QUICK LINKS

    QUICK LINKS

    Join The Union

    Courses

    Journal

    Podcast

    Contact Us

    Share this page

    About

    Who we are

    What we do

    Presenters

    FAQ

    Professional Learning

    Courses

    Journal

    Podcast

    Policy and Guidelines

    Privacy Policy

    Social Media Guidelines

    Our Ethics

    Useful Links

    About

    Head Office Details

    Member Portal

    Media Releases

    Become a member today

    NSW Teachers Federation

    Connect with us

    © 2025 New South Wales Teachers Federation. All Rights Reserved. Authorised by Maxine Sharkey, General Secretary, NSW Teachers Federation, 23-33 Mary St. Surry Hills NSW 2010.