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.
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.
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 Schoolingpanel 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)
xxvCentre 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).
Professor Megan Watkins and Professor Greg Noble present a research-based examination of the complexities involved in working with students of refugee backgrounds in our schools. They discuss why it is both inherently difficult and necessary for NSW public school teachers to strive to meet the needs of these students and their families . . .
In mid-2021, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated the total number of refugees world-wide was 27.1 million (Refugee Council of Australia, 2022). This number has risen dramatically in recent years due to the increasing number and intensity of conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia, forcing many to flee their homelands and seek safety elsewhere. Many of these refugees are under 18 years old, and many are unaccompanied minors. While Australia’s proportion of this number is relatively low, thousands of young refugees (Refugee Council of Australia, 2017) enter Australia each year on humanitarian visas and face the daunting prospect of beginning school in their newfound home with limited or no English, limited or no literacy in their first language, disrupted or no previous schooling, and the scars of trauma resulting from the experiences of war, the death of loved ones, poverty and protracted periods of displacement in refugee camps and/or one or more countries of transit (Yak, 2016). Once settled, many may be under pressure to earn an income or to help other members of their family, which affects their attendance and progress at school (Refugee Council of Australia, 2016). In addition to contending with these difficulties, issues around gender, faith and racism may affect their capacity to ‘fit in’ (Yak, 2016).
The New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education (DoE) now records that there are more than 11,000 students of refugee backgrounds in NSW schools (NSW DoE, 2020). While many of these students are located in metropolitan Sydney, in particular in the western and south-western suburbs, there is an increasing number settling in regional areas, posing considerable challenges for schools and their communities to ensure that these students’ complex needs are met. Schools are often the first point of contact with wider Australian society for young refugees, so how schools position and serve them has enormous consequences (Uptin et al., 2013).
Various community, government and non-government organisations have provided considerable assistance to schools, but a number of studies suggest that not only is far more needed (Sidhu et al., 2011; Block et al., 2014), but that further research is required to gauge refugee students’ experiences of schooling and whether current practice is addressing their needs and those of teachers (Ferfolja and Vickers, 2010).
In 2019, the NSW Teachers Federation commissioned researchers at Western Sydney University to undertake such a study to help fill this gap and to yield data to inform how they may best support teachers working in these complex environments. The report, It’s Complex! Working with Students of Refugee Backgrounds and their Families in New South Wales Schools, (Watkins, M., Noble, G., & Wong, A. ,2019) is the product of this research. Its title, drawn from a comment made by one of the teacher participants, reflects not only the complex needs of refugee students and their families but the inherent complexity of meeting these needs often within schools already grappling with the challenges of socio-economic disadvantage, increasing cultural and linguistic diversity and students with physical and intellectual disabilities. Meeting the needs of students of refugee backgrounds is undertaken alongside those of other students, making the task for teachers a complex one indeed.
It’s Complex aimed to capture this complexity. The research informing the report included interviews and focus groups with executive staff and teachers, students with and without refugee backgrounds and the parents or carers of students of refugee backgrounds in ten public schools. These schools included primary schools, high schools and Intensive English Centres (IECs) in Sydney and regional locations in NSW, with high and low populations of students of refugee backgrounds and varying numbers of students with a Language Background Other Than English (LBOTE) amongst their broader populations. The study also involved observations in classrooms, playgrounds and at school community events. In addition to school-derived data, interviews were also held with relevant personnel in organisations supporting refugee students and their families.
The study examined the challenges faced by school communities as a result of their increasing number of students of refugee backgrounds. It looked at the educational and broader needs of these students; the programs in place to support them within schools; the links between educational experiences and other aspects of the settlement process and the social contexts in which settlement occurs; the consequences for teacher workloads and their professional capacities; and a range of other issues. This article provides a broad overview of the project’s key findings with a link here to the full report for more detailed examination of these from the perspectives of each of the various informant groups that participated in the study.
One of thekey findings of the research was that the needs of students of refugee backgrounds are not simply the pragmatic requirements of educational performance, these students also have complex linguistic, social, cultural, psychological and economic needs. In discussion with principals and other senior executive across the 10 project schools, the area of greatest need identified was that of welfare, not only ensuring students were fed, housed and felt safe but that there was support for those who experienced psychological trauma as, without addressing this, it was considered difficult for students’ educational needs to be met. Yet these respondents also stressed the highly individualised nature of these students’ needs with one teacher remarking: ‘all refugee students struggle but struggle in different ways. We have very capable students, students that have, you know, not as much capacity to learn as others. And some are very bright – a full range of learners’.
While not news to school executive and teachers, the research revealed how schools aremuch more than educational institutions. This may have always been the case, but with increasing and diversifying refugee intakes, they have become complex sites of refugee and community support, with greater expectations and challenges. As one principal commented: ‘I guess we are kind of, we have almost become a community centre, and this is something that I find quite challenging … So, we get a lot of requests that are far removed from our brief as a school’. Schools, therefore, are grappling with a range of issues that result from these greater expectations: teacher workload, professional learning, funding issues, interagency coordination and community liaison.
The research also found that there were uneven levels of expertise and support across schools, both by region and by type, and related to school and community contexts, and individual teacher’s experiences. There are schools, such as IECs, which are set up well to meet these challenges, developing significant banks of expertise and resources, and there are schools which, by dint of their location and demographics, are not well set-up nor well-funded.
Many teachers are providing additional support beyond the classroom in terms of arranging homework clubs, extra work, support services, community liaison, etc, creating increased and intensified workloads which have stressful consequences for work-life balance and some teachers’ mental health. Many teachers are providing this extra support but with varying degrees of experience and expertise. Many do not have English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D) qualifications, for example, exacerbating the stressful circumstances in which they are working. Many are also finding themselves in classrooms with an increasing complexity of student populations, posing challenges for classroom teaching.
This was matched with very uneven levels of understanding in schools – amongst teachers, non-refugee students and the wider community – of the complex experiences and challenges faced by students of refugee backgrounds. Staff in schools often struggled to ‘get the right balance’ between addressing the pastoral, the academic and the socio-cultural needs of students of refugee backgrounds with huge implications for these students’ learning. One executive staff member reflected on the problem of an overemphasis on the pastoral:
“I think that when we are dealing with our students one-on-one and we start to hear and get to know them more and hear the history of where they have come from and their trauma, there can be a bit of a tendency to make excuses for them not improving academically and as strongly as they could and … I am going to use the word ’pity’, like there can be an element not from all teachers but from some teachers.”
An executive member at another school suggested such an approach raised questions about the nature of wellbeing itself: ‘So, it is striking that balance between wellbeing as welfare and wellbeing as self-esteem and achievement’.
As a consequence, students of refugee backgrounds have very varied educational experiences: some are settling well, and some are not ‘fitting in’. While most value the efforts undertaken at their schools, as do their parents and carers, many are also suffering from a lack of support. These students are also faced with the dilemma of in\visibility: they often stand out – for various reasons – but their needs are often ‘invisible’, and they can fall through cracks in the system. Many students recounted the enormous challenges of English language and literacy acquisition and often felt underprepared for their educational experiences. Many students continued to experience enormous problems in the transition from IECs to high school and there appeared little progress in addressing these issues, despite being well documented in previous research (Hammond, 2014).
Many students of refugee backgrounds reported the ongoing incidence of racism, though this is not always acknowledged by staff in schools. This racism varied in scale and type from microaggressions of other students avoiding contact and making veiled derogatory comments, to forms of structural racism often resulting from well-intentioned programs that actually reinforced these students’ lack of belonging. In one example of the former, in a school with a predominantly Anglo-Australian student population attended by a small number of refugee students of African backgrounds, a teacher referred to students making racist taunts in the form of ‘back door kind of comments’. The teacher explained how students would say: ‘So, they are asking for a black pen, like they will disguise the racism and emphasise certain things like, “Can I have a black pen?” or something like that. Whereas I shut that down immediately’.
While schools provided various forms of assistance, many continued to struggle with developing and sustaining productive relations with parents of refugee backgrounds and their wider communities.
The work of Refugee Support Leaders (RSLs), a temporary measure introduced in response to the arrival of large numbers of Syrian refugees in 2016, proved increasingly important in many schools and their broader communities. RSLs took up roles in the wake of the loss of the NSW Department of Education Multicultural Education/EAL/D consultants that occurred in 2012, a loss which has been detrimental for many schools. A pleasing development, following the publication of It’s Complex, and because of the NSW Teachers Federation’s advocacy, has been the appointment of EAL/D Leader roles seemingly filling the void of the previous Multicultural Education/EAL/D consultants. These are much needed positions which, it is hoped, are ongoing, supporting schools in meeting the EAL/D needs of not only refugee students, but the many students who require specialist EAL/D teaching.
Finally, while much work has been done to address issues around the coordination of governmental and non-governmental agencies in the area of refugee settlement, this has not always been embedded well in daily practice in schools. For this work to be consolidated and extended we must enable multiple, critical conversations – between the Department, support organisations and schools; between teachers, students, parents/carers and their wider communities – around students’ educational, pastoral and social needs, and the capacities of schools to address them. Failure to facilitate such dialogue will threaten the stability of life that students of refugee backgrounds and their families so urgently need.
A useful starting point will be looking at the full report, which can be found at:
If you are interested in applying to the It’s Complex: Working with students of refugee backgrounds in NSW public schools professional learning course run by the Centre for Professional Learning, please click here.
Block, K., Cross, S., Riggs, E. and Gibbs, L. (2014). Supporting schools to create an inclusive environment for refugee students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12), 1337-1355.
Ferfolja, T. and Vickers, M. (2010). Supporting refugee students in school education in Greater Western Sydney. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 149-162.
Hammond, J. (2014). The transition of refugee students from Intensive English Centres to mainstream high schools: Current practices and future possibilities. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Communities.
New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education (DoE)(2020) Supporting Refugee Students https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/multicultural-education/refugee-students-in-schools.
Sidhu, R., Taylor, S. and Christie, P. (2011). Schooling and Refugees: Engaging with the complex trajectories of globalisation. Global Studies of Childhood, 1(2), 92-103.
Uptin, J., Wright, J. and Harwood, V. (2013). ‘It felt like I was black dot on white paper’: examining young former refugees’ experience of entering Australian high schools. Australian Educational Researcher, 40(1), 125-137.
Watkins, M., Noble, G., & Wong, A. (2019). It’s Complex: Working with students of refugee backgrounds and their families in New South Wales public schools (2nd ed.). NSW Teachers Federation.
Megan Watkins is Professor in the School of Education at Western Sydney University. Her research interests lie in the cultural analysis of education exploring the impact of cultural diversity on schooling and the ways in which different cultural practices can engender divergent habits and dispositions to learning. Megan began her career as an English/History teacher working in high schools in Western Sydney. Her most recent book is Doing Diversity Differently in a Culturally Complex World: Critical Perspectives on Multicultural Education (Bloomsbury, 2021) with Greg Noble.
Greg Noble is Professor at the Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University. Greg has been involved in research in multiculturalism and education for thirty years. His interests have centred around the relations between youth, ethnicity, gender and schooling, as well as aspects of curriculum and pedagogy in multicultural education. He also has broader research interests in issues of migration, ethnic communities and intercultural relations. He has published eleven books, including: Doing Diversity Differently in a Culturally Complex World (2021) and Disposed to Learn (2013), both with Megan Watkins, and Cultures of Schooling (1990).
Helen McMahon, Michelle Gleeson, Andrea Gavrielatos & Trystan Loades consider one of the most important topics for all teachers … classroom management. Helen, in the introduction, returns to a topic that she wrote about in the 2015 edition of the JPL. Michelle and Andrea then give us the primary school perspective and Trystan discusses the high school context . . .
Introduction
Teaching is complex, no more so than when it comes to the management of student behaviour. Effective teaching can only occur when the behaviour of students is successfully dealt with at a whole school and individual class level. High standards of behaviour are essential in creating a productive and positive learning environment, as well as a safe and respectful school.
A high standard of behaviour should be expected of all students and applied throughout the school each day by everyone. From the outset it is important to understand a fundamental principle: while the public education system accepts all students, we do not accept all behaviours.
The student profile of many of our schools is becoming ever more complex and, therefore, teachers require increasingly sophisticated sets of skills to deal with behaviour in their own classes. However, it is important to understand that the management of student behaviour is also a collective responsibility, across the whole school by all staff, and in serious cases with systemic Department of Education support.
As all schools are required to develop a behaviour management plan, it is essential that this is developed collaboratively, and closely adhered to by all staff, in order to develop consistent approaches to unacceptable conduct.
Individual teachers, particularly for those who are beginning their teaching career, will usually need additional advice, support, and professional learning opportunities to acquire the range of skills that allow them to gain confidence and become professionally autonomous. Any professional learning should cover areas such as:
why engaging teaching strategies can be the basis for minimising unacceptable behaviour
how to manage persistent disruptive and challenging behaviours
strategies that could be used to de-escalate conflict situations
the need to engage parents and caregivers early and in a positive manner
the support that will be available from colleagues and executive teachers.
The NSW Department of Education’s Student Behaviour Policy (2022) states, “All students and staff have the right to be treated fairly and with dignity in an environment free from intimidation, harassment, victimisation, discrimination and continued disruption.” To ensure that schools are safe, productive, and stable learning environments it is essential that this fundamental policy position is embedded in the school culture and reinforced daily.
Classroom management – school contexts
During the liveliness and excitement of a bustling school day, there are many things out of our control. One of the things that we, as teachers, can control is how we set up our day and our classroom to ensure that we set our students (and ourselves) up for success.
The way classroom management looks in each classroom is ultimately up to the teacher. And whether or not you are working in a school which sets clear systems, expectations and routines, there are practices for your classroom that can make the day flow in a more positive direction.
Before we launch into the what and the how, let’s start with the why. On top of knowing our content and how to structure a lesson, classroom management directly affects the conditions for student learning and effective teaching. When the learning space is organised … students’ academic skills and competencies, as well as their social and emotional development are supported and enhanced (Kratochwill, DeRoos, Blair, 2009). This aligns with the Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice domains of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (NESA 2018), specifically that teachers ‘Create and maintain supportive and safe learning environments’ and ‘Know students and how they learn’. The intersection of these two standards with regards to classroom management highlights that not only do our considerations about how we arrange the learning space matter, but this, combined with a deep understanding about our students’ individual characteristics and needs, can be affected and supported by that very learning environment. What are the things we need to factor in for our students before they’ve set foot through the door for our lesson or for the day? How can we suitably reflect on our lesson plan to anticipate how we might deal with behaviours that become too excitable? How can a teacher pre-empt and identify strategies to ensure all students are engaged safely and successfully in classroom activities?
Across both primary and secondary settings, there are universal elements to classroom management. that link back to the Standards. that can help us reflect on how we best set our students up for success in their learning. Let’s take a look at a day in the life of a primary school teacher and a learning period for a high school teacher, and, in doing so, share some strategies which you can add to your toolbox to support you…
A Day in the Life of Primary School – through the lens of classroom management
Starting the day
Classroom management begins well before the front gates open for students and families. This time is quite possibly the most important part of the day with regards to effective classroom management.
A good habit to develop each day when you arrive at your classroom is to map out the day plan in a visual timetable, either written or with visual aids, displayed at the front of the room. This practice is an example of how to utilise Universal Design for Learning as seen in the Universal Design for Learning planning tool (2021). This framework is most beneficial for students with additional needs, however it reduces the fear of the unknown and can be beneficial for all students. Taking a moment to walk through what’s happening, on any given day, can also help you to anticipate the flow of what’s planned and review what you’ll need for the lessons for the day. Using the morning routine to locate and organise resources needed for your lessons will assist in those teaching moments to maintain your students’ focus and minimise opportunities for behaviours to unravel. Being proactive in having what you will need at the ready, or mentally noting what you need to prepare during the session break and considering how and where resources are accessed during the learning is an important aspect of classroom management related to the routines you establish and maintain in your classroom.
Setting the tone of your learning environment
How you then organise your classroom with resources and routines inherently sets the tone of the learning environment. Giving attention and consideration to how the classroom helps to develop a culture of learning and structure is something which can often be forgotten. Setting up the learning space in a way which is conducive to teaching and learning is paramount.
It is helpful to ask questions such as ‘can students and teachers move around the room with ease?, ‘is there enough room to walk?’, ‘is the floor clear of resources?’, ‘are resources clearly labelled and packed in the appropriate place?’, ‘where will students sit for group discussions or brainstorming or modelled lessons?’, ‘what kind of noise levels are acceptable and at what times?’.
Ideas as simple as group structures and seating arrangements can promote positive behaviours and academic outcomes (Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008). There is evidence to support the idea that ‘if students are working on individual assignments, they should be seated in an arrangement that makes interacting with peers inconvenient…for example, in rows students are not directly facing each other’. Conversely, ‘when the desired behaviour is interactive… seating arrangements that facilitate interactions by proximity and position, such as clustered desks or semi-circles, should be utilised’ (Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008). Strategically planning these structures prior to the day beginning can have a positive influence on student engagement and behaviour.
Involving your students to establish a set of expectations supports a shared understanding of what is valued in the learning environment for everyone to be able to engage in learning. It can also assist students to regulate collaboratively the classroom behaviour. What is important to one group can be vastly different to another, so this process is a crucial component to classroom management and is most successful when students have agency in determining the conditions for learning as well as the positive rewards and negative consequences that go along with these. Along with collaboratively setting up, and explicit teaching of, class expectations, each teacher will have a different system of organisation with regards to student jobs, and overall set up. It is important to be strategic in deciding which student will be responsible for each job depending on their social, emotional and academic needs. Guiding questions such as the following are helpful to ask yourself when selecting students for each job: Do any students require regular breaks? Does a particular student require a peer to assist them in executing the job? Will the students be able to refocus upon completion of the job?
As with any element of classroom management, it is crucial to model and guide students in how to successfully perform each task before expecting them to complete it independently.
Relationships sit at the heart of effective classroom management and a simple yet effective way to connect with your students, and to set the tone of the day of learning, is to greet students personally as they enter the classroom. Positioning yourself at your door, monitoring both students as they unpack and those that are settling into the room allows you to:
start the day with a positive connection with your students,
remind students of classroom expectations through specific praise of preferred behaviours, in turn supporting the transition into the formal learning space, and
gauge the moods and mindsets your students have before the learning begins.
This, in turn, offers a “low-cost, high-yield” proactive strategy that complements the organisational elements to setting up the learning environment (Cook, et. al 2018). Coupled with your proactive measures of setting up your resources, being proactive with your students’ behaviour, and starting every day with a positive and personal acknowledgement of each student in your class, has been shown to promote higher levels of academic engagement. It also minimises, even prevents, the occurrence of problem behaviours that disrupt learning. Additionally, being perceptive to the emotional wellbeing of your students, not only as they start the day but throughout the day, and particularly following transitions, can assist you in managing behaviours through pre-corrections, further modelling or revision, or tuning in to students’ needs to support them to re-engage or regulate their behaviour.
Positive reinforcement extends the tone of the learning environment and can take varied forms without always being a tangible reward although, at times, the extrinsic motivator can help. Acknowledging and reinforcing the behaviours you expect supports students with direct feedback on what is valued, but is only effective when the reinforcement is genuine, clear, and explicit about the behaviour and given in a timely manner (i.e., straight after the target behaviour). If there are established positive reinforcement procedures in your school, it is critical that these are integrated into your own systems. Such integration, however, does not preclude the use of your own additional strategies, if required, which can be as simple as non-verbal cues and verbal praise, a positive phone call to parents, to tangible reward tokens or activity rewards. Knowing the individual preferences of your students will also inform the approach that you take for encouraging positive behaviour in your classroom. Most students will respond to the universal support and expectations for behaviours (be they the whole school or your class systems) but some students may require an individualised approach with targeted and specific behaviour goals that have positive consequences negotiated with the student and their parents or carers.
“Be the calmest person in the room”
And while giving attention to the routines and structures of our classroom allows us to exert some control in pre-empting behaviours, the only thing we can control is ourselves and to be the calmest person in the room. The key to effective routines and structures lies in modelling and explicit teaching but this begins with our own behaviours. Students are more likely to replicate calm energy if they have been shown this. The importance of being responsive over reactive, having and modelling empathy, and above all else being consistent, sits hand in hand with the positive, safe and supported learning environment that is conducive to the success of our students.
Transitions and breaks
When it comes to managing your expectations around behaviours at any point in the school day, it’s often safer to never assume your students will know how to behave. Establishing expectations not only with regards to the use of resources and interactions for group or independent work, but also around transitions requires explicit teaching through modelling. For example, if your students are expected to enter and exit the classroom quietly and in two straight lines or move from sitting on the floor to their desks, then preparing them from the outset with clear expectations and demonstrations is required, even for simple tasks such as these. Show your students what the transition looks like, sounds like and feels like so that they can experience that through practise, revising as often as needed.
While classroom management is often viewed as enacted within the four walls of the classroom, practices such as active supervision apply in the playground and have similar effect and impact in managing behaviour. The proverbial ‘eyes in the back of your head’ comes to mind. The effects of scanning, movement and proximity on supporting positive behaviour in any school setting will influence behaviour. It is important to remember that our job is to teach and that every moment is a teaching moment, whether we are in the classroom or elsewhere. Teach and praise what you want to see more of and celebrate the steps along the journey.
Managing the end of the day
The bookends of the day largely dictate the overall organisation of your classroom, and where much attention is given to setting up the day, the end of the day is equally important. Similar to the setup, pre-empting issues and being proactive is key at the end of the day – knowing that your students are going to start feeling tired and fatigued, consider what could go wrong with the planned group activity, or art lesson, and make adjustments to your plan where necessary. If you think they require some time to regulate, complete a calming ‘brain break’. If it seems as though they are lacking energy, complete an energising activity. (Although ‘brain breaks’ can be done at any time throughout the day, the end of the day is often when they are utilised most regularly).
Allow yourself plenty of time for packing up, giving yourself at least 10 minutes at the end of the day to finish calmly and smoothly with an activity before students are dismissed such as read a story/poem, play a game, silent reading or journaling, guided drawing, practise gratitude, dance or sing. The activity could be a routine one or be different every day, this is up to you and your class. Just as the expectation stands for entering the classroom, be consistent with clear expectations for how students leave the classroom when the bell rings. Think about how many students will you dismiss at once- will they be the same students at tables/desks or the students who are packed up and quiet? Supporting a positive and calm end to the day will not only support your students in finishing the day on a good note but is also good for our own wellbeing to avoid ending the day in frantic chaos.
When you need support…
With the increase of students with additional needs enrolled in public schools, over the course of a career, teachers will likely be met with students who challenge and provoke our thinking. Sometimes, when redirection and all proactive, positive systems have been exhausted or when the safety of a child, a class, or staff members is at risk, different strategies are required.
Whether or not an individual behaviour plan is required, at times, it is critical to utilise expert and experienced staff, including senior executives, for support.
Some things to remember, if and when faced with more complex, challenging and escalating behaviours, are:
remain calm – think about your tone of voice, body language, what you are saying, how you are moving, where you are positioned,
explain why the specific behaviour is unacceptable – Is it unsafe? Is it disturbing the learning of others? Is it respectful?
don’t buy into any secondary behaviours which may arise,
give short and direct instructions – it is helpful to use the student’s name first and then the clear, explicit direction,
follow through,
call for assistance.
Remember, once any incident is dealt with, it is important to move on and start fresh.
Students come to school to learn and they all have a right to do so in our vibrant and diverse public education system. With clear and visible expectations and routines which are reiterated and retaught consistently through a calm and predictable teacher, you set yourself and your class up for success (Dix, 2017).
Consistency
For many students, their school, and in particular their classroom, is the place where they feel most at ease, at baseline and where they can truly be themselves. Their teacher is a constant and when we act and react predictably to all situations, it makes our students feel safe. Safety allows students to remain calm, display positive behaviours and in turn, engage in learning. ‘Visible consistency with visible kindness allows exceptional behaviour to flourish’ (Dix, 2017).
A High School Context
Teaching is a highly complex activity, which, depending on which research you read, requires a teacher to make as many as 1500 decisions a day.
As stated earlier, teachers have a core responsibility to ‘Create and maintain supportive and safe learning environments’ Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (2018). Our students also have a core responsibility to ensure that they are contributing to a positive learning environment. As Helen McMahon stated in our introduction: while public education accepts all students, we do not accept all behaviours.
High schools are busy places, in which movement and transitions are an integral part of every school day. The effective management of student behaviour is critical to ensuring that our practice and pedagogy impacts positively on the learning of our students. Without it, learning cannot take place.
Three ways in which teachers can impact on student behaviour are through: routines and structures, controlling the learning environment and engagement.
Routines and Structure
As high school teachers, we are always receiving students who are arriving from another context, be it roll call, recess, lunch or the previous lesson. Our class may be arriving as a group who were together in the previous lesson or be a group coming together for the first time that day. This poses significant challenges for a teacher who needs to ensure that the start to their lesson is both orderly and purposeful.
Paul Dix, author of When the adults change, everything changes (2017)states, “Your students might claim that they prefer to lead lives of wild and crazy chaos. In reality, it is your routines, and your relentless repetition of them, that makes the students feel safe enough to learn.”.
Managing the Start of Lessons – Explicitly teaching clear and consistent routines throughout the structure of your lesson has many benefits for you and your students. Meet students in the same way every lesson, if they line up, do it the same way every time. Greet every student, building a connection before entering the classroom. Ensure that the first contact is proactive, positive and within your control. If you search YouTube, you will find videos of teachers sharing elaborate handshake routines which are individual to each student. This would not be something we could all do, but a personal verbal greeting to all students is something we can all achieve, it could be asking about the lesson they have just left or simply a personalised greeting. These interactions also help teachers, before entry to the classroom, to pick up on issues students are arriving with.
Feeling Safe – Consistent routines and structures provide students a connection to, and a feeling of safety in, our classrooms. For students, the idea that ‘I know what to expect’ allows space for engagement in initial instructions and explicit teaching. For students who have experienced trauma and those who have additional learning needs this is critical to building a sense of trust and safety as a learner.
Managing the End of Lessons – Our role in supporting smooth transitions is particularly important at the end of lessons. It allows for reflection on the learning which has taken place and provides support to our colleagues who will be receiving our students during the next teaching period. It also directly impacts on the safety of students and staff as they move to the next location of their day. Having a consistent routine at the end of lessons is as important as at the start of each lesson. Developing a suite of strategies such as exit tickets, routines around packing up and preparing to leave the room are vital and the important thing is to, as Paul Dix said, be relentless in your repetition of them.
Controlling the Learning Environment
Taking control of your classroom is a vital component of being a successful teacher. There is no one way to do this, and every teacher is different, however, being passive is not an option.
The NSW Department of Education’s Classroom management: Creating and maintaining positive learning environments (CESE 2020) cites research which says:
Put simply, classroom management and student learning are inextricably linked; students cannot learn or reach their potential in environments which have negative and chaotic classroom climates, lack structure and support, or offer few opportunities for active participation (Hepburn & Beamish 2019, p. 82), and students report wanting teachers who can effectively manage the classroom learning environment (see Woolfolk Hoy & Weinstein 2006, p.183; Egeberg & McConney 2018)
Layout – Assert your control of the classroom environment through the arrangement of furniture. Set up the space before students arrive whenever you can. If there are materials to distribute to allow learning activities to begin, have them on desks before students arrive. This saves time and removes opportunities for disruption.
Managing Behaviour -Exercise power to gain power and, therefore, control of the environment. Gain compliance through small instructions which are easy to follow, such as completing a simple task of collecting or getting out equipment or setting up a page in a workbook can settle a class and establish your authority in the classroom. Taking ownership of behaviour management is critical in establishing your authority. You should always know how to get support from colleagues and your Head Teacher but resolving issues yourself will always pay off in the long run. It is important to note that knowing when an issue needs to be escalated is also critical.
Seating Plans – A well-considered seating plan allows students to know where to be and for you to control where individuals are in your learning space. Some students may have specific positions described in their Individual Learning Plans (ILPs). A seating plan can allow you to establish effective group work as a supportive structure in your classroom.
Non-Verbal Communication – The use of non-verbal communication is a core skill we all need to develop; it can allow us to intervene early and get behaviour back on track without drawing attention to a student or their behaviour. This can be as subtle as eye contact at the right moment, a hand movement to suggest calming or even a smile and a nod.
Positioning – Where you place yourself at key times such as student arrival, roll marking, giving instructions, asking questions will impact on each activity’s effectiveness. Your ability to move around the room while maintaining a scanning view allows you to keep on top behaviour and levels of student engagement. Some teachers use a specific position in the classroom to manage student behaviour which is separate to positions they use for explicit teaching. Used consistently, this can even become an example of non-verbal communication as students learn to associate it with an intervention by the teacher.
Pace – Your control of the pace of your teaching and the learning in your classroom is also a key strategy in developing an orderly and effective classroom. Research has shown that a slow pace of instruction can cause significant behaviour problems. The right pace in a lesson will positively impact on student engagement and progress in learning.
Engagement
Any teacher, who has become involved in a struggle of attrition with an individual or a class around behaviour, knows that it is a negative cycle, which needs to be broken. The way to break it is always through positive engagement in learning.
Explicit Teaching – Students’ knowledge of what they are learning, and why they are learning it, impacts on their engagement. Building their ‘field’ of knowledge around a topic or specific activity adds richness and promotes genuine understanding and interest.
Modelling – Modelling an activity for a class, or group within a class, draws students into a task and provides the opportunity for a teacher to build credibility with students. A teacher sharing skills is a way for students to see that their teacher is an expert from whom they can learn.
Questioning – A skilled teacher will use a wide range of questioning techniques to develop students’ ideas, to check on understanding, to draw individuals into the learning process and to inform their own decision making on where to take the lesson next. Questions allow a teacher to take a class deeper into a topic and promote students’ skills of justifying and explaining their reasoning. Simple techniques like ‘no hands up’ or ‘think, pair and share’ place structure and enhance the teachers control of order in a classroom. The use of closed questions to check recall and open questions to promote deeper thinking and analysis will be appropriate at various times within a class’s learning. Click here for the link to the Department of Education’s section on Questioning
Participation – Designing learning activities or tasks which require active participation is fundamental to building student engagement.
When teachers require that students participate in lessons, rather than sit as passive listeners, they increase the odds that these students will become caught up in the flow of the activity and not drift off into misbehaviour (Heward, 2003).
This idea is explored in detail by Geoff Munns’ JPL article from 2021. He said,
“We talked about students being ‘in-task’ (positively involved in their learning) as opposed to being ‘on-task’ (just complying with teacher instructions).”
No matter which stage you are teaching, being prepared, and having as much organisation in place as possible will enable any teacher to deal with the unexpected. As stated earlier a teacher will make as many as 1500 decisions in any normal school day, each one may be critical to a student’s learning or the management of their behaviour. Teaching really is rocket science.
Cook, C, Fiat, A, Larson, M, Daikos, C, Slemrod, T, Holland, E, Thayer, A & Renshaw, T (2018). ‘Positive greetings at the door: Evaluation of a low-cost, high-yield proactive classroom management strategy’, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, vol. 20, no. 3.
Dix, P. (2017). When the adults change, everything changes: seismic shifts in school behaviour. (1st ed.). Independent Thinking Press.
Egeberg, H & McConney, A (2018) What do students believe about effective classroom management? A mixed – methods investigation in Western Australian high schools. Springer International Publishing
Hepburn, L & Beamish, W (2019) Towards Implementation of Evidence Based Practices for Classroom Management in Australia: A review of research Australian Journal of Teacher Education
Heward, W.L. (2003) Ten Faulty Notions about Teaching and Learning That Hinder the Effectiveness of Special Education. The Journal of Special Education
Wannarka, R., & Ruhl, K. (2008). Seating arrangements that promote positive academic and behavioural outcomes: a review of empirical research. Support for Learning, 23(2), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00375.x
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Student and Teacher Perspectives on Classroom Management.
In C. M. Evertson, & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management. Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues (pp. 181-219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Helen McMahon is an experienced secondary History and English teacher. For much of her career she taught in the south-west region of Sydney. Helen held the position of Deputy Principal at Bankstown Girls High School before being appointed as Principal to Leumeah High School. Following her retirement as principal she returned to the classroom, teaching English at Keira High School.
Helen is the author of a popular article on behaviour management published in the very first edition of the JPL which is still available. The article was based on beginning teacher professional development courses she delivered on behalf of the Federation.
Andrea Gavrielatos began teaching in 2015 at Bardia Public School in Sydney’s South West.
She has worked in mainstream and special education settings. Prior to her current role she worked as a relieving Assistant Principal in an SSP which caters for students with Emotional Disturbances, Behaviour Disorders and Intellectual Disabilities.
Andrea is currently an Assistant Principal at a large Primary School in the Canterbury-Bankstown area. She has worked in infants and primary.
Throughout her career, Andrea has supported early career teachers to establish planning/programming routines and classroom management strategies as presenter at various conferences and courses.
Michelle Gleeson began teaching in 2005 as a primary teacher and is currently acting Deputy Principal at a large primary school on Sydney’s Northern Beaches.
Throughout her career, Michelle has been involved in advising early career teachers on accreditation processes and supporting beginning teachers to establish planning/programming routines and classroom management strategies as presenter at various conferences and workshops for the CPL and NSWTF.
She worked as a Professional Learning Officer at the NSW Institute of Teachers (now known as NESA) and advised teachers and school executive on designing and implementing effective processes to support the learning and development of all staff, using the framework of the Teaching Standards.
Trystan Loades has been a high school teacher for 26 years. He has held classroom teacher and executive roles in both NSW schools and schools in the UK, where he was a Faculty Head Teacher for 6 years. He is currently a Deputy Principal at Keira High School in Wollongong.
In recent years Trystan has worked closely with the University of Wollongong Master of Teaching program. He collaborated in the writing and delivery of professional learning for teachers supervising Professional Experience.
He currently leads new staff induction and support for beginning teachers at his school.
What does assessment practice look like in your school?
Is there an agreed understanding across the school community of the meaning and purpose of evidence, assessment theory and practice, feedback, and evaluation? How does your school implement a common approach to assessment?
Professor Jim Tognolini from the University of Sydney’s Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment (CEMA) will lead an interactive and content-driven professional learning experience that will unpack the definitions and purpose of data, evidence, assessment, feedback and evaluation. We will explore the importance of teacher voice in assessment and how to lead a collaborative approach to assessment practice across the school community.
Over two days, this course will focus on the role of teachers and school leaders in supporting colleagues to evaluate the effectiveness of their approach to assessment.
Participants will have an opportunity to consider how to successfully lead a shift in school-wide assessment practice through a collective approach within their own school context.
Open All
19 May and 3 June at Surry Hills
9 September and 23 September at Blacktown
14 October and 27 October, online via Zoom
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.
Lisa Edwards
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.
K-12 teachers and school leaders who support and work with teacher colleagues to build capacity through collaboration.
$440 for 2 days
Please note, payment for courses is taken after the course takes place.
“Amazing presenters. Knowledgeable and relevant information that applies to transformational change regarding new curriculum.”
“Really logical and practical discussion and explanation of key principles which completely resonated.”
“Great conversations had reflecting on current school practices and the change that is needed.”
“This course was a wonderful opportunity to delve and immerse in assessment.”
Dr Lorri Beveridge, Michael Murray and Hannah Gillard explore the high gravitas and practicalities of raising awareness of intersex, sexuality and gender diverse people in the primary classroom through teaching LGBTIQ literature.1 Teaching students LGBTIQ texts can better address students’ academic and emotional needs…
SETTING THE SCENE
The scene is a Year 6 classroom. The lesson is a novella study of a text dealing with racism,
(Pascoe, 2016). Increasingly, deep and significant class discussions are sprouting and intertwining, making the text come alive, resulting in high student engagement, that oftentimes occurs when teachers draw on quality texts in the teaching of English. Defined by Ewing, Callow and Rushton (2016, p103), quality texts are those that engage students and teachers alike, are rich in language and imagery, multi-layered and evoke a range of different communities and responses. Conversations about quality texts allow children to dive into rabbit-holes, to engage in complex and nuanced conversations they might not be exposed to inside and/or outside school, yet are so crucially important to their young lives. These conversations help children to make sense of their world in an open way, as they explore issues dialogically through the eyes of characters in texts, fostering positive wellbeing, at a safe distance. Mrs Whitlam narrates the struggles of an adolescent girl, tussling against covert racism in her daily life. The teacher in the Year 6 classroom steers the class to strengthen meaning through the complex interplay of context, narrative and character. One eloquent class member contributes at length regarding a particularly relevant aspect of the text. To encourage continuation of the important conversation string, the teacher reflects to the class, “She said, …”.
The student promptly responds, “I am a boy”, in a matter-of-fact way. Surprisingly, there is no reaction from the class. The teacher apologises profusely and moves the lesson right along. The above narrative is a real-life example of a teacher feeling under-confident and underprepared to correctly address transgender and gender diverse students in the classroom. In this paper, we argue that teaching quality LGBTIQ literature can open up an exploratory and open space for students and teachers to learn about intersex identities, and sexuality and gender diversity. Teaching these modes of diversity through literature means intersex identities and gender and sexuality diversity can be explored in a way that involves all students (those within and outside LGBTIQ communities) so that LGBTIQ students don’t feel singled out and confronted in the classroom due to questions or speculations about their difference. Teaching LGBTIQ texts can help make school a safer environment for LGBTIQ students, as well as their friends and family more broadly.
Why primary schools should support LGBTIQ students and address intersex identities, and sexuality and gender diversity
It is a reasonable expectation that LGBTIQ positive content is provided to children so they feel supported, and also so they can envision sexuality and gender diversity, for instance, as positive potentialities for themselves.
A related reason to teach LGBTIQ literature is the confronting, unacceptable and possibly all-too-familiar narrative of a child being misgendered in a classroom, which is a timely reminder to educators to reflect on how we support transgender and gender diverse students and their families. We may not be providing these students with the attention they require, and deserve, to set them up for success at school. The idiomatic expression, “viva la difference”, attributed to the French resistance movement (Vernet, 1992), encourages us to celebrate difference and diversity. Yet academic research ubiquitously points the finger at insensitive education systems, including a lack of LGBTIQ support, failure to recognise transgender identity, bullying and victimisation. These are widely regarded as contributing factors to spiralling youth suicide rates (Gorse, 2020; Lee & Wong, 2020; Turban & Ehrensaft, 2017).
Paediatric gender diversity is a burgeoning area of research (Ehrensaft, 2020; Ristori & Steensma, 2017; Henderson, 2016). Young children who are transgender or gender diverse also suffer from anxiety, depression and suicidality. A recent Canadian parent-report study (MacMullin, 2020) found that 9.1% of 6-12 year olds who expressed gender non-conformity had attempted suicide or self-harm. What is particularly notable in Australia is the marked scarcity of data on suicide and mental health for young people who are Indigenous and LGBTIQ (Henningham, 2021 p14; Rhodes and Byrne, 2021 p34). Scholar Mandy Henningham says this requires further research to recognise the impact of factors like intergenerational trauma and institutionalised racism on health outcomes for LGBTIQ and Indigenous young people (Henningham, 2021 p14). In recognising the poorer health outcomes for many LGBTIQ young people (and the need for more research), we as educators can assist LGBTIQ children and their families by creating inclusive school communities underpinned by values such as respect, acceptance (as opposed to tolerance) and honesty.
In failing to address the learning and wellbeing needs of LGBTIQ students, we are espousing a particular, mostly unintended, point of view, relegating our LGBTIQ students to the null curriculum, often referred to as the hidden curriculum (Kazeemi et al, 2020; Banja, 2020; Eisner, 1994). Schools socialise students in ways that are viewed as educationally significant, including shared values, images and beliefs (Eisner, 1994). The null curriculum is that which is not taught at school, important due to its conspiracy of silence. Pedagogy around intersex people, and those who are gender and sexuality diverse may indeed be regarded as part of the null curriculum. LGBTIQ diversity may be an uncomfortable subject for many educators to address. The null curriculum implies that being heterosexual and ‘cisgender’ (a term meaning not transgender) is normal and being LGBTIQ is abnormal. Promoting awareness of sexuality and gender diversity reduces anti-LGBTIQ stereotypes, bullying and violence against LGBTIQ students.
Mel Smith (2020) argues that public schools are fundamentally, and necessarily, inclusive and have a particular responsibility to recognise and represent the diversity of their communities in the ways they plan and execute schooling. This responsibility does not begin in high school. According to Smith, ‘the need to also incorporate LGBTIQ inclusive topics in the curriculum in primary schools is highlighted by the fact that at least half same sex attracted young people realise their attraction while in primary school (Hiller et al., 2013), and that there are often rainbow families that are not recognised, or acknowledged, in the stories that are read or the content that is covered in class’.
Practical ways primary schools can support LGBTIQ students and address LGBTIQ diversity
It takes a village to raise a child, according to an African proverb. Similarly, it takes a whole community to support LGBTIQ students in schools. We can collectively create inclusive school communities by focusing on a number of key strategies:
Neither endorse nor empower heteronormativity2 or gender stereotyping3. Create spaces for discussion about being intersex, and gender and sexuality diverse. Encourage class conversations about LGBTIQ issues in ways that students can connect with, for example, relations with family. This can be achieved by making conscious decisions about what stories to read to children, setting up classrooms and school routines free of gender constraints, including enabling students to wear the school uniform they want. If teachers fail to discuss intersex identities, and sexuality and gender diversity, many students will go unsupported and find fitting in socially at school challenging. A culture of care and inclusion is necessary for successful school performance.
Explore LGBTIQ matters with young children in a safe, familiar space by reading books that reflect different family compositions, including LGBTIQ families, exploring classroom resources from a human rights perspective. In doing so, students learn that all families are special and to value diversity in our society. Students and their families have a right to see themselves reflected in books and other resources used in classrooms.
Ensure staff are well-informed and have access to, and opportunities to discuss, research-based articles about bullying, and LGBTIQ students. Professional learning provides teachers with methods to intervene and de-escalate threatening situations. Teachers need to know they will be supported because teaching content on intersex identities, and gender and sexuality diversity, is regarded as controversial by some sectors in society. That said, some students and families do not identify with the nuclear family and deserve to read about families similar to their own. Teachers need to know that they have the support of school leaders when intervening in challenging situations. Together, teachers and school leaders play an important role in challenging phobias against LGBTQ people and bullying in schools, providing support to our LGBTIQ students and their families.
Address issues of phobia against LGBTIQ students as a high priority. There is staff agreement that inappropriate language will not be tolerated, and staff will intervene to protect students from bullying and homophobia. Leadership attitudes are identified as the most influential factor in keeping LGBTIQ students safe at school. School leaders contribute to moral purpose in their schools and the wider community.
Seek feedback from openly LGBTIQ students as to whether they feel safe at school. Interview parents, counsellors, psychologists and students themselves as to how to support LGBTQ students and what assistance they require to succeed at school. (DeJean & Sapp, 2017; Dewitt, 2012).
In addition to the points raised above, we make two other important suggestions about how primary schools can be more LGBTIQ inclusive. Firstly, when developing curriculum for LGBTIQ topics and when teaching this content, teachers and education departments should be aware that there are often specialist groups and resources that should be consulted in relation to different parts of LGBTIQ communities. This is important given the distinctiveness of identities and issues faced in intersex, and gender and sexuality diverse communities. Finding out which groups and resources to consult can be facilitated by online searches, reading LGBTIQ media, attending LGBTIQ events as well as consulting with LGBTIQ groups and community members. The importance of consulting specific communities when teaching and developing curriculum is emphasised by intersex activists in the Darlington Statement- a document published by intersex activists in 2017. Here, they, ‘call on education and awareness providers to develop content with intersex-led organisations and promote delivery by intersex people’ (p8). Notably, Intersex Human Rights Australia (2021) and Intersex Peer Support Australia (n.d.) are both specialist intersex groups in the Australian context that provide things like resources, information and support regarding intersex identities. Teachers and education departments being consultative, and recognising the specificity of experiences in LGBTIQ communities, is a practical way they can make primary schools more LGBTIQ inclusive.
Secondly, to make primary schools more LGBTIQ friendly, primary educators should include content that recognises the way LGBTIQ identities intersect and overlap with multiple forms of minoritised difference – for instance, being a young person who is part of LGBTIQ and Indigenous communities in Australia (Rhodes and Bryne 2021, p30). Research by David Rhodes and Matt Byrne shows a lack of attention is paid to being LGBTIQ and Indigenous in the education of primary teachers and students in Australia. Given the specificity of being part of both LGBTIQ and Indigenous communities, and the importance of educating children about Indigenous histories and cultures, teaching children about the particularities of LGBTIQ and Indigenous experiences is crucial. Understandably, Rhodes and Byrne note this practice should be backed by the inclusion of non-tokenistic content covering the intersection of LGBTIQ and Indigenous experiences in the tertiary courses for primary teaching. In addition to this, they argue for, inter alia, the amendment of school and education department policies to speak to this intersection (Rhodes and Byrne 2021, pp37-38). One cost of not educating students about LGBTIQ and Indigenous identities is the potential siloing of minoritised difference, which can perpetuate the idea that being LGBTIQ and Indigenous, for instance, are mutually exclusive4. Writers who are part of LGBTIQ and Indigenous communities, like Maddee Clark and Mandy Henningham, have identified this stereotype as a serious issue (Clark 2014 quoted in Henningham 2019, pp101-102; Clark 2014 quoted in Henningham 2021, p12). For instance, drawing on the work of Maddee Clark, Henningham highlights the way Clark was questioned about the very existence of people who were both LGBTIQ and Indigenous (Clark 2014 quoted in Henningham 2021, p12). When teaching about LGBTIQ experiences at the primary level, education should be inclusive of the way gender and sexuality diversity, for instance, intersect with cultural and racial difference, to reflect the realities of young people’s lives.
Curriculum links
The NSW PDHPE curriculum (NESA, 2019) addresses LGBTIQ students indirectly. Outcome PDe-1 – 5-1 relates to characteristics that make us similar and different, and how we manage personal challenges as they arise. PDe-1 – 5-2 relates to feeling safe and strategies to support self and others. Following on from here, PDe-6 – 5-6 deals with the importance of context in health and wellbeing. Similarly, PDe-7 – 5-7 describes actions that promote health, safety and wellbeing. In these COVID times, there has been a particular focus on student wellbeing, which coheres with addressing gender diversity at school.
The NSW English curriculum (NESA, 2012, 2019) also provides space for teachers to address issues of gender diversity in the classroom. Objective D, in particular, states that students will develop knowledge, understanding and skills in order to ‘express themselves and their relationships with others and their world’. The outcome for Stage 1 (Years 1-2) that occupies Objective D, EN1-11D, requires that a student ‘responds to and composes a range of texts about familiar aspects of the world and their own experiences’, including of course the LGBTIQ student’s own experience of family. By Stage 2 (Years 3-4), the equivalent outcome, EN2-11D, extends this challenge to composing and responding to texts ‘that express viewpoints of the world similar to and different from their own’, indicating that by this stage students could be exposed, through texts, to experiences of gender that might be different to their own. For Stage 3 (Years 5-6), EN3-8D requires that a student considers how ‘different viewpoints of their world, including aspects of culture, are represented in texts’. Gender diversity, an essential aspect of culture, falls neatly into the gamut of ‘different viewpoints’, but this outcome is a reminder that in English it is not gender diversity itself which is the focus but rather how gender diversity is represented in texts. Concepts endorsed in the English conceptual framework (NSW DoE & ETA, 2017), co-developed by the English Teachers Association NSW and the NSW Department of Education that support a focus on gender diversity, include narrative, character, context, representation, perspective, and point of view. Clearly the study of English in primary school provides rich opportunities for students to learn about gender diversity in relation to themselves, each other, and the world at large.
Even the new skills-oriented K-2 English syllabus (NESA, 2021), recently released but not due for mandatory implementation until 2023, recognises the diversity of learners in the classroom and requires that students ‘identify aspects of their own world represented in texts’ (Early Stage 1) and ‘identify representations of groups and cultures in a range of texts’ (Stage 1). The rationale of the English K-2 syllabus (2021) states ‘students are to engage with Australian diversity by exploring a range of texts … and a range of linguistic, cultural and social perspectives’ (NESA, p9). By engaging with diverse literature, students feel empowered to express their identities, broadening their perspectives and world views.
Significantly, all curriculum documents in NSW schools (e.g. NESA, 2019) contain learning across the curriculum content, including cross-curriculum priorities, and general capabilities, areas that are embedded in all key learning areas, identified as essential learning for all students. Teaching students about LGBTIQ diversity in the primary classroom is supported, identified and incorporated by the following learning across the curriculum content. The icons below are visual symbols that identify the particular content embedded across the various syllabi:
Cross curriculum priority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures
General capabilities of critical and creative thinking, ethical understanding, intercultural understanding and personal and social capability
Additionally, other learning across the curriculum area of difference and diversity
The cross-curriculum priorities and capabilities, identified above, exemplify the high gravitas of learning about LGBTIQ diversity in primary classrooms. They are identified throughout our syllabus documents as important learning for all students.
Texts that address LGBTIQ diversity and ideas for their use in the primary classroom
Books hook us in, and it is our challenge as educators to ensure that “the right book falls into the right hands” (Old Souls Book Club, 2021). Age-appropriate books, that depict LGBTIQ characters and families woven into their storylines, expose students to the diversity of the real world. Similarly, texts that empower students to stand up for themselves and others help children to learn coping skills that assist them in dealing with situations of homophobia and bullying. Quality literature provides a safe space to expose students to LGBTIQ related topics, which some might regard as controversial, in thought-provoking ways. Schools can play an important role in countering anti-LGBTIQ sentiment and lead the way towards a better world for everyone.
Reading a great book and identifying with its characters is an enjoyable and powerful means of opening up conversational spaces with students. Many of the texts traditionally used in classrooms contain heterosexual and cisgender characters and images. LGBTIQ students do not see themselves or their families reflected in these texts. By drawing on texts that include LGBTIQ characters and non-traditional family structures, these students see mirrors of themselves. Characters are more relatable to them. Teachers are promoting self-acceptance in gender diverse students, and increased awareness in all students, curbing anti-LGBTIQ stereotypes and reducing bullying and violence against LGBTIQ students.
Appendix 1 below lists a wide range of texts for primary-aged children that address gender, sexuality and family diversity, including suggested links to the NSW curriculum, particularly English. It also provides an overview for teachers to assist them in selecting texts that address the wellbeing needs of students in their classrooms. These texts could form the basis of English units, focusing on concepts of narrative, character, context, theme and representation, perspective or point of view. Outcomes and content from other subjects, especially PDHPE, could be incorporated into these units. Note that while PDHPE curriculum fails to directly address issues related LGBTIQ experiences, there is enough scope in this syllabus to justify the inclusion of content that might promote learning for all students in relation to LGBTIQ diversity.
The books listed in Appendix 1 are but some of the vibrant LGBTIQ young people’s literature available, and we encourage teachers to be on the lookout for other age appropriate LGBTIQ texts they could teach. We encourage teachers to stay attuned for primary school texts that feature intersex identities, and that speak to the intersection between Indigenous and LGBTIQ experiences in Australia, so that students who occupy these identities can see themselves represented and feel included.
Lonesborough, G. (2021). The boy from the mish. A&U Children’s.
Whilst not a primary school text, we would like to highlight the recently released book The Boy from The Mish by Gary Lonesborough by Gary Lonesborough (2021) for exploring the intersection of Indigenous and LGBTIQ+ communities.
The book is a queer Indigenous novel for readers 14 and up about a 17-year-old exploring his identity in a rural community of Australia. Finding and teaching texts that speak to the diversity of LGBTIQ experiences is crucial so that students and teachers can appreciate the heterogeneity of LGBTIQ communities.
Conclusion
As can be seen through the narrative of the child being misgendered by a teacher at the beginning of this paper, it is crucial there is greater awareness and understanding of LGBTIQ issues within primary classrooms. Teaching students LGBTIQ literature, such as the texts that we have included in our appendix, in an accepting way creates an open, explorative space where children and teachers can be educated about intersex identities, and gender and sexuality diversity. As stated, we recommend teachers stay on the lookout for texts that address the multiplicity of LGBTIQ experiences – for instance, being Indigenous and sexuality and gender diverse. Teaching LGBTIQ texts is particularly important given the way LGBTIQ literature has been described as being part of the ‘null’ or ‘hidden’ curriculum’ in schools. The invisibility of the diversity of LGBTIQ experiences can perpetuate heteronormative biases in teaching, which can result in children being unaware that being a part of the LGBTIQ community is a positive potentiality for them – one life course amongst many that is legitimate and that they can be proud of. Providing students with the opportunity to explore LGBTIQ experiences in an open, explorative way through texts is a positive move in the direction towards promoting better health and wellbeing outcomes for LGBTIQ students and teachers.
While this paper explores the power of literature to educate about LGBTIQ experiences, it is one change amongst many that could occur to make primary schools more LGBTIQ inclusive. For instance, we have discussed the importance of consulting with intersex communities regarding the development of educational curriculum relevant to that community. Additionally, education scholars David Rhodes and Matt Byrne have highlighted an array of opportunities for improving the primary school experience for teachers and students who are part of both Indigenous and LGBTIQ communities (Rhodes and Byrne 2021). This includes embedding teaching about the intersection of these identities in the university education of primary school teachers, and the modification of school and education department policies to recognise the experiences of those who are LGBTIQ and Indigenous (Rhodes and Byrne 2021, p.38-39). Doing so would improve pedagogy and encourage the celebration of ‘diversity in all its forms’ (Rhodes and Byrne, 2021 p.38).
Endnotes
‘LGBTIQ+’ is an acronym that popularly stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and more (signified through the ‘+’). The ‘+’ is intended to be inclusive of gender and sexuality diverse identities not explicitly or fully represented by the letters ‘LGBTIQ’.
Heteronormativity refers to the belief that heterosexuality, along with other dominant identities like being cisgender, are the default, preferred, or normal modes of being
Gender stereotyping is the propensity to evaluate people on the basis of their perceived gender
Numerous writers have explored how sexuality and gender diversity is something that has existed in Indigenous cultures in Australia since before colonisation (for instance, see Moon 2020; Riggs & Toone, 2017 quoted in Henningham 2019, p.103). Texts such as Colouring the Rainbow: Blak Queer and Trans Perspectives. Life Stories and Essays by First Nations People of Australia (2015), edited by Dino Hodge, is an important anthology that explores contemporary Indigenous, queer and trans experiences.
Open All
Texts
Curriculum Links
Overview
Carr, J. & Rumback, B. (2015). Be Who You Are. Bloomington, Indiana: Authorhouse.
Suitable S1, S2. PDe-1 identify who they are PD1-1 describe characteristics that make us similar / different PD2-1 explore strategies to manage physical, social, and emotiona change English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-OCL-01; ENE, EN1-UARL-01
A child is born into the wrong body – one that doesn’t match the gender the child feels inside. Assigned male at birth, the child is described as having a “girl brain”. This book is designed to educate readers about gender diverse and transgender children.
Walton, J. & McPherson, D. (2016). Introducing Teddy: a gentle story about gender and friendship. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Suitable ES1, S1. Useful text to discuss complex issues. The bear is the main character who is exploring gender identity in the text. Useful to act out and facilitate class discussion. English K-2 (2021):ENE, EN1-OLC-01; ENE, EN1-UARL-01
The main character is a teddy whose outside does not match what’s felt on the inside. A story about being true to self, friendship and acceptance. “Wear whatever makes you happy” is the main message of the text.
Gonzalas, M. (2014). Call Me Tree. Llamame arbol. San Francisco, CAL: Children’s Book Press.
Suitable ES1, S1. Multicultural text. English/Spanish vocabulary. Useful for teaching figurative language including metaphor, simile, personification. Also rhetorical questions. English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-CWT-01; ENE, EN1-UARL-01
The text figuratively describes a child growing from a seed, like a tree. “A seed, a tree, free to be me”. The inspiring text encourages readers to reach for their dreams and accept themselves for who they are.
Ewert, M. & Ray, R. (2008). 10,000 Dresses. NY: Seven Stories Press.
Suitable S1, S2; possibly S3. The changing use of personal pronouns when referring to transgender and gender diverse people. English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-CWT-01 English K-6 (2012): EN2-9B; EN3-6B.
Bailey is assigned male at birth but wishes to wear dresses-something others have told him boys can’t do. Bailey struggles when her family won’t accept her gender and dress preferences. She finally finds a friend who helps her feel confident in pursuing her dream to wear dresses and express her true identity.
Valentine, J. & Schmidt, L. (2004). The Daddy Machine. Boston, Mass: Alyson Wonderland Publishers.
Suitable S1, S2; possibly S3. A useful text to teach code and convention including punctuation, speech marks, sentence complexity. English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-CWT-01 English K-6 (2012): EN2-9B; EN3-6B.
Two siblings with two mums long for a father. They make a daddy machine out of junk materials and make many more daddies than they bargain for. How do they solve their problem? An extremely funny text.
Parr, T. (2010). The Family Book. NY: Hachette Book Group.
ES1, S1. Identifying words describing diverse families e.g. “Some families have two mums and two dads”. English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-VOCAB-01; ENE, EN1-OLC-01.
There are different kinds of families. Bright, fluoro colours characterise the illustrations in this simple text. The book has multiple layers of meaning. A lot of information is inferred in few words. It is a useful text to discuss family diversity with young children.
Arnold, E.K. & Davick, L. (2019). What Riley wore. NY: Beach Lane books.
ES1, S1. Vocabulary- building word banks from illustrations. Discussion questions: How is Riley different? How does this make others feel in the text? How does it make you feel? English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-VOCAB-01; ENE, EN1-OLC-01.
“Are you a boy or a girl?” the reader ponders throughout the text. Riley replies, “Today I’m a firefighter and a dancer and a monster hunter and a…”. Riley dresses according to how they are feeling, irrespective of gender expectations. The message of the text is, “We are all unique and important. It doesn’t matter whether we are a boy or a girl”. This text is a celebration of difference.
Gale, H. & Song, M. (2019). Ho’Onani Hula Warrior. NY: Tundra Books.
ES1, S1, S2. Multicultural text. Links to History syllabus: share heritage stories (ES1) investigate changes in family life (S1) identify traces of the past in the present (S2). English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-OLC-01; ENE, EN1-UARL-01; ENE, EN1-VOCAB-01. English K-6 (2012): EN2-9B; EN2-10C.
The protagonist doesn’t see herself as a boy or a girl, but occupies “a place in the middle”. She queries gender stereotypes and triumphs in a contemporary setting relevant to students today. The story is consistent with “Mahu” people in Hawaiian culture, who embrace both male and female traits. The theme of the text is “show respect for all people”.
Willhoite, M. (1991). Daddy’s Roommate. Boston, Mass: Alyson Wonderland Books.
ES1, S1. Large, colourful illustrations which lend themselves to teaching visual literacy. Discussion questions: What is happening in the pictures? What stands out? Why? -What feelings are portrayed in the illustrations? How do you know? English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-OLC-01; ENE, EN1-UARL-01.
A social story which opens a communicative space about divorce and a child’s growing understanding of homosexual love. “Being gay is one more form of love” and “Love is the best kind of happiness” are the main messages of the text.
Parr, T. (2010). The Daddy Book. NY: Hachette Book Group.
ES1, S1. Sentence building describing the diversity (and similarities) of fathers e.g. “My/ your daddy has…”. English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-OLC-01; ENE, EN1-UARL-01; ENE, EN1-CWT-01.
This book is about fathers who do different things with their children. Bright, fluoro colours in illustrations. Simple text. Multiple layers of meaning. A lot inferred in few words. The theme of the text is celebrating family diversity.
Richardson, J., Parnell, P. & Cole, H. (2005). And Tango Makes Three. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Suitable S1, S2. Discussion: Do the two daddy penguins act the same way as other penguin parents? How are they the same/ different? English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-VOCAB-01 ENE, EN1-SPELL-01 prefixes, suffixes compound words ENE, EN1-UARL-01.
This is a true story of two male chinstrap penguins who live at the Central Park Zoo, NY, and raise a penguin chick together. It raises questions about heterosexuality/homosexuality in the animal kingdom and how this might relate to humans. New vocabulary: carousel, cotton top tamarin, ice rink, red panda bear.
Newman, L. & Cornell, L. (2015). Heather Has Two Mummies. London: Walker Books.
Suitable ES1. Starting School English K-2 (2021): ENE, EN1-OLC-01; ENE, EN1-UARL-01; ENE, EN1-CWT-01. CAe3MVA makes artworks… to communicate ideas; CAe-4IVA explores how artworks and the artwork of others communicate ideas.
A useful discussion starter about starting school and learning about other peoples’ families. The setting of the text is a family consisting of two mums and a 5-year-old child who is starting school. At kindergarten, the children paint their families as an introduction to a lesson about family diversity. The main focus of the text is that each family is special, and the common link is that families love each other.
Savage, S. & Fisher, F. (2017). Are You a Boy or a Girl? London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Suitable S1, S2. English K-2 (2021): EN1-OLC-01; EN1-UARL-01; EN1-CWT-01. Use background knowledge of a topic to make inferences about the ideas in a text. Identify text connectives, cohesive links in text. English K-6 (2012): EN2-11D. Responds to/ composes texts expressing views similar to/ different from own.
A child called Tiny likes to dress up and does not conform to gender norms. Children at their new school keep asking them whether they are a boy or a girl. Tiny avoids the question, as they do not identify as either a boy or a girl. A useful text to introduce the topic of gender diversity with young children. Discussion: Why does it matter if Tiny is a boy or a girl? Why do you think Buster tries to bully Tiny? How do you know this?
Donaldson, J. & Scheffler, A. (2004). The Gruffalo’s Child. London: Macmillan.
Suitable ES1, S1. English K-2 (2021): EN1-OLC-01; EN1-UARL-01; EN1-CWT-01.ENE, EN1-PHOKW-01;ENE, EN-REFLU-01. ENE, EN1-RECOM-01. Identifying rhyme, rhythm in text. Word families, vowel digraphs. Punctuation including question marks, exclamation marks, quotation marks, direct speech. Opportunities to make meaning through drama. Creating story map to sequence activities in text. Building noun groups, verb groups. Narrative structure is also something to discuss.
Donaldson’s widely popular, ubiquitous texts contain witty, rhythmic verses, instantly familiar to children and parents alike. The setting of The Gruffalo’s Child, a sequel to the award-winning text, The Gruffalo (1999, 2019) is a single parent Gruffalo family in the deep, dark wood. It is unclear whether the child is male or female, and the author embellishes on this in Miller (2020). Key discussion questions: Who looks after the Gruffalo’s child? Did you wonder about the gender of the Gruffalo’s child? If so, why? If not, why not? Do you think the child’s gender matters?
Hegarty, P. & Wheatcroft, R. (2017). We are Family. London: Caterpillar Books.
Suitable S1, S2 English K-2 (2021): EN1-OLC-01; EN1-UARL-01; EN1-CWT-01; EN1-PRINT-01. Visual literacy – following story maps in text. Recording student responses and captioning illustrations in text. Identifying contractions, rhyme, figurative language, nouns, verb groups.
A simple text that elaborates on the diversity of families. The book celebrates family similarities and differences. The story in this text is descriptive, presented in rhyming couplets, with no clear storyline. However, the illustrations are multifarious and lend themselves well to modelled, guided and independent writing activities (EN1-7B, EN2-7B).
Green, B. & Zobel, A. (2020). Who’s Your Real Mum? Brunswick, Vic: Scribble.
Suitable ES1, S1. English K-2 (2021): ENE,1-OLC-01; ENE,1-UARL-01; ENE,1-CWT-01; ENE,1-PRINT-01. Modelled, guided and independent writing activity. Students write a text in Q&A format.
An imaginative text. Elvie has two mums. Both mums are equally important to Elvie. She compares her mums to superheroes. Her friend asks, “Who is your real mum?” The text is in a Q&A format. She tries to make her friend understand that both mums are equally important to her. Beautiful illustrations make effective use of colour – yellows/browns for reality, blues for imagination.
Bell, D. & Colpoys, A. (2017). Under the Love Umbrella. London: Scribble.
Suitable ES1, S1. English K-2 (2021): ENE,1-OLC-01; ENE,1-UARL-01; ENE,1-RECOM-01. Use comprehension strategies to build literal and inferred meaning. Discussion: What does “Under the Love Umbrella” mean? Who do you love? Why?
A text of rhyming couplets which describes a parent’s over-arching love for their child. Familiar situations of sorrow, fear and danger are outlined, including being scared of the dark, bad dreams, frightening dogs, broken toys, arguments with friends, feeling shy, and having no friends. The text is a segue into class discussions about significant people in children’s families and how they help them… Who do you love? Why?
Beer, S. (2018). LOVE makes a family. Richmond, Victoria: Little Hare Books.
Suitable ES1, S1. English K-2 (2021) ENE,1-UARL-01; ENE,1-CWT-01; ENE,1-PRINT-01. Code and convention focus.: Understands how sentence punctuation is used to enhance meaning and fluency. Focus on figurative language e.g. “lending a hand”.
A colourful text about family diversity. There are few words in this book. The words describe happy family situations to unpack and discuss with the class. The illustrations depict the diversity of families. Discuss, “What is happening in the pictures?”
Keegan, L.J. & Stapleton, M. (2019). Things in the Sea are touching me! Gosford, NSW: Scholastic.
Suitable ES1, S1. English K-2 (2021) ENE,1-OLC-01; ENE,1-UARL-01; ENE,1-RECOM-01; ENE,1-CWT-01 Understands how text structure contributes to the meaning of texts, text organisation, narrative structure. Make a story map to visually represent the story. Sentence complexity. Phonics.ENE,1-PHOKW-01 e.g. see, me.
A child with two mums participates in a family outing to the beach. The child is scared of the water and her two mums comfort her and explain each of the sources of her fear. A story told with humour and warmth through a child’s eyes.
Shirvington, J. & Robertson, C. (2020). Just the Way We Are. Sydney, NSW: ABC Books. HarperCollins.
Targets ES1, S1. English K-2 (2021): ENE,1-OLC-01; ENE,1-UARL-01; EN1-REFLU-01. Draw on an increasing range of skills to read, view and comprehend a range of texts on increasingly challenging topics.
The text deals with family diversity, racial diversity and inclusion. The main characters are children from different racial backgrounds who describe their families from their particular points of view. This text is useful for students to see children like themselves in quality children’s literature, in an engaging narrative format. It describes the inclusive, collaborative lived experience of children growing up in diverse families, through children’s eyes.
Wild, M. & Rossell, J. (2020). Pink. Sydney, NSW: HarperCollins.
Targets ES1. Publisher recommendation is for 2-5 years. English K-2 (2021): ENE,1-OLC-01; ENE,1-UARL-01; ENE,1-RECOM-01.ENE,1-CWT-01 Recognises linking words in texts, responds to shared reading for enjoyment and pleasure. Compose texts using pictures and graphics to support their choice of words. Make connections between text and own life, retells story in sequence, identify main idea. Explore how words and pictures work together to make meaning.
The main message of this text is one of self-acceptance. The main character, Pink, is born into a family of green dinosaurs. She struggles to fit in, but her difference finally saves her and her friends. This text is the second collaboration between literary heavyweights Wild and Rossell. The first, Bog Trotter (2015), encourages children to challenge themselves to try new things. The colours in Pink comprise vibrant pinks and greens. The textures and luminosity of the illustrations make the characters come alive. This text lends itself to class discussions about how we are the same, yet different, and how difference should be viewed as a strength.
Stuart, S. (2020). My Shadow is Pink. Dandenong, Victoria: Larrikin House.
ES1, S1. That said, I have discussed the important themes of equality, self- acceptance, diversity and gender identity in this text with adults- so possibly suitable for all ages. English K-2 (2021): ENE,1-OLC-01; ENE,1-UARL-01; ENE,1-RECOM-01. Discuss how that students may have different responses to a text, explore the different contribution of words and images to meaning in stories. Share feelings and thoughts about the events and characters in text.
This text is a rhyming narrative. It is about a boy who likes to dress in female clothing yet feels ashamed when his peers at school laugh at him. The author, Scott Stuart reported on his website that he wrote the story for his young son, who, on beginning school, was bullied for dressing up like Elsa, from the movie, Frozen. Through this text, Stuart aims to raise awareness of gender identity and diversity, in doing so broadening society’s narrow view of masculinity. He aims to affirm to his child, and all children; “You are loved. Exactly as you are”.
Walliams, D. & Blake, Q. (2008, 2018). The Boy in the Dress. London: HarperCollins.
This text suitable S3. EN3-2A: Engage personally with texts, experiment and use aspects of composing that enhance learning and enjoyment, present a point of view about particular literary texts using appropriate metalanguage and reflecting on the viewpoints of others. EN3-3A Understand, interpret and experiment with literary devices; summarise a text and evaluate the intended message or theme.
A children’s book written by David Walliams, a comedian well-known for the television series, Little Britain (his first), and illustrated by Quentin Blake, well known illustrator of the Roald Dahl books. The text uses humour to explore children wearing clothes not normatively associated with their cisgender, their assigned gender at birth. Dennis, a 12 year old boy, enjoys football and fashion. His parents are divorced, and he lives with his father and brother, who do not tolerate or understand Dennis’s need to dress up in girls’ clothing. He is an ordinary boy, who lives in an ordinary town, with an unusual hobby. A humorous narrative which elicits interesting class discussions about the serious topic of gender stereotyping with pre and adolescent students.
Texts that address gender and family diversity in the classroom.
DeJean, W., & Sapp, J. (2017). Dear gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender teachers: Letters of advice to help you find your way. Information Age Publishing.
DeWitt, P. (2012). Dignity for all: Safeguarding LGBT students. Corwin Author and Consultant.
Ehrensaft, D. (2020). Treatment Paradigms for Prepubertal Children. In: Forcier, M., Van Schalkwyk, G., Turban, J. (eds) Paediatric Gender Identity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38909-3_13
Eisner, E. W. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.). Macmillan.
Ewing, R., Callow, J., & Rushton, K. (2016). Language and Literacy Development in Early Childhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316442791
Gorse, M. (2020). Risk and protective factors to LGBTQ+ youth suicide: A review of the literature. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal: C & A, 39(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00710-3
Henderson, B. (2016). Building fires: Taking a critical stance on how we view gender in early childhood education through teacher research. In Voices of Practitioners; Washington volume (Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 25–29).https://issuu.com/naeyc/docs/vop_for_web_fall_2016/32
Henningham, M. (2019). Still here, still queer, still invisible. In T. Jones (Ed.), Bent Street 3: Australian LGBTIQA+ Arts, Writing and Ideas 2019 (pp. 98–105). Clouds of Magellan.
Henningham, Mandy. (2021). Blak, bi+ and borderlands: An autoethnography on multiplicities of Indigenous queer identities using borderland theory. Social Inclusion, 9(2), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i2.3821
Kazemi, S., Ashraf, H., Motallebzadeh, K., & Zeraatpishe, M. (2020). Development and validation of a null curriculum questionnaire focusing on 21st century skills using the Rasch model. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1736849. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2020.1736849
Lee, C. S., & Wong, Y. J. (2020). Racial/ethnic and gender differences in the antecedents of youth suicide. Cultural diversity & ethnic minority psychology, 26(4), 532–543. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000326
Lonesborough, G. (2021). The boy from the mish. A&U Children’s.
MacMullin, L. N., Aitken, M., Nabbijohn, A. N., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2020). Self-harm and suicidality in gender-nonconforming children: A Canadian community-based parent-report study. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000353
NSW Department of Education & English Teachers’ Association NSW. (2016). English textual concepts and learning processes. English Textual Concepts. http://www.englishtextualconcepts.nsw.edu.au/
Rhodes, D., & Byrne, M. (2021). Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander LGBTIQ+ issues in primary Initial Teacher Education programs. Social Inclusion, 9(2), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i2.3822
Ristori, J., & Steensma, T. D. (2016). Gender dysphoria in childhood. International Review of Psychiatry (Abingdon, England), 28(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1115754
Turban, J. L., & Ehrensaft, D. (2017). Research Review: Gender identity in youth: treatment paradigms and controversies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 59(12), 1228–1243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12833
Dr Lorraine (Lorri) Beveridge is a sessional academic and independent consultant. She has published articles on aspects of teaching subject English in primary schools. Her doctoral research area is the impact and sustainability of collaborative teacher professional learning.
Michael Murray
Michael Murray is a former English teacher, head teacher and chief education officer, and working as an independent consultant in English and literacy K-12.
Lorri and Michael share a website that provides resources for teachers in subject English: https://primaryenglish.education/. Their shared passion is teaching the big ideas of English through the vehicle of quality texts.
Hannah Gillard
Hannah Gillard is a non-binary academic in the final stages of their PhD at the University of Sydney. Hannah’s doctoral research area is LGBTQ+ diversity in the workplace.
Thomas Mayor explains why teachers should be aware of the significance of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and outlines its history. In a thoughtful message to all public education teachers, he examines what we can do to spread the message about why an Indigenous voice in parliament must be enshrined in the Australian Constitution. . .
I have been a member of the trade union movement since I commenced my working life at the port of Darwin at seventeen years old. It is there on the wharves, through the Maritime Union of Australia, that I learnt of the value of using the leverage of unity. I have seen individual workers uniting to make change at the workplace level; I have seen ports and state branches uniting to make change at the state level; and I have seen trade unions themselves, united in very specific campaigns to make major, lasting, national change that is to the benefit of all workers.
The union movement has won many a battle for workers – from wharfies to teachers – and social justice for all. We have brought our society from one where workers were mere servants, punished for disobeying the master; we have come from a place where children were forced to labour in harsh conditions and First Nations people were slaves, to a society that now enjoys universal health care, weekends, various loadings, allowances and legislated rights. Each of these wins for the union movement and society were maligned by employers and right-wing politicians who warned of impending doom from our success. But their claims of Armageddon, should these changes happen, have been thoroughly proved as selfish fearmongering.
Workers and their communities have progressed so far because unions are organised at many levels, including at the highest political level since the establishment of the Australian Labor Party. The working class has progressed because we have built strong and unapologetically representative structures that can influence laws and policies and organise to hold employers and politicians to account.
We are always under attack because of this.
I was a 20-year-old wharfie when Prime Minister John Howard colluded with the National Farmers Federation to silence the voice of maritime workers. In the middle of the night in April 1998, Patricks Stevedores sent balaclava clad mercenaries on to wharves around the country to physically drag us from our workplaces, locking us out of our livelihoods. It was part of the Howard Government’s grand plan to silence all workers by destroying their unions.
Howard failed to destroy the MUA. Because of our long-standing structure, discipline, financial resources and the leverage of unity that the union movement had, after several months of battle on the streets and in the courts, we victoriously marched back on to the wharves to work.
Where Howard failed though, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as a collective, he succeeded. He attacked the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, a representative Voice for First Nations people. He used its flaws as a weapon, instead of dealing with its issues and building on its strengths. Since ATSIC was silenced, we have seen the Northern Territory Emergency Response, or Intervention, we have seen hundreds of millions of dollars misdirected away from the communities and services that are needed, and we have seen the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens widen. Divided, we suffer.
I have briefly described how unions have achieved great progress for workers and society in general because it is one of the ways I understand the significance of establishing a constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice to Parliament, as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is also how I understand that at Uluru, the 250 delegates, from throughout the Australian continent, that shaped and endorsed the Uluru Statement, made the right decision, prioritising the Voice in our proposed sequence of change.
Before I go on, it is worth briefly recapping on how the Uluru Statement from the Heart came to be, and what has happened since.
The Uluru Statement from the Heart is an unprecedented national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander consensus that came from the rare opportunity – an opportunity only achieved through relentless advocacy – to conduct a well-resourced and intensive series of dialogues culminating in a national constitutional convention at Uluru. The Statement brings together the collective wisdom of over 200 years of struggle.
At that final convention in the heart of the nation, on 26 May 2017, we were 270 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from throughout this great continent and from many different First Nations. The difficulty, the hard work, the passion of the debate and the achievement on the third and final morning – the achievement of a national consensus – cannot be underestimated for its national significance.
The endorsement of the Uluru Statement was a political feat that should be recognised, celebrated and taught in schools.
The call for a constitutionally enshrined Voice was officially dismissed by Prime Minister Turnbull in October of 2017, misinforming the Australian public that the proposal was for a third chamber in parliament. But this dismissal has been turned around by the weight of numbers – by a majority of Australians who say that if they were to have the opportunity to answer the invitation to walk with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in a referendum for a Voice, they would say YES.
To turn the dismissal around, a mountain of work has been done by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advocates and our allies. A turn around that is even more remarkable because we have had few resources with which to campaign with; there has been no government support to educate people about the Uluru Statement and the reasons we gave for its proposals, nothing from which to even build a campaigning organisation. We were starting from scratch.
The Uluru Statement itself, the sacred canvas, 1.6 by 1.8 m imbued with Anangu Tjukurrpa and the 250 names of representatives, proved to be our most powerful campaign tool. The Maritime Union of Australia, at the request of Aunty Pat Anderson who led the dialogue process to Uluru, seconded me to take the canvas around the country to inspire a people’s movement. For 18 months I hit the road and everywhere the Uluru Statement went, support multiplied. Another key moment was when Wiradjuri and Wailwan lawyer, Teela Reid, challenged Malcolm Turnbull on national television exposing his ignorance.
In the Prime Minister’s electorate of Wentworth, the grandchildren of the great Gurindji leader, Vincent Lingiari, engaged with voters to explain the bungling of the great opportunity the Uluru Statement provides – the opportunity to right the wrongs of the past in a way that the people who were wronged themselves had chosen.
At the Garma festival, the late John Christopherson, an Elder from Kakadu in Arnhem Land, spoke of the hope that the Uluru Statement gives this country, how there is nothing to lose, and 100,000 years of continuous culture to gain, by enshrining the Voices of First Nations people in the constitution.
Teachers across the nation have also taken action. Without waiting for education resources, many learnt about the Uluru Statement and proceeded to teach children who have taken the message in to their homes causing the adults in their lives to accept the invitation to walk with us.
A grass roots movement has increasingly made it loud and clear that we were not going to take no for an answer to the Uluru Statement.
In 2018, moved by this growing movement of people who had learnt about the Uluru Statement’s call for a Voice, the government established the bi-partisan Joint Select Committee into the Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Inevitably, the committee’s final report recommended that the Voice is the most desired reform, and that a co-design process begin.
This year, the co-design groups, appointed by the Morrison Government, have consulted with the public. Over 5000 of the submissions from individuals and organisations, from all different backgrounds and from across the political spectrum, called for the Voice question to go to a referendum. The Voice co-design final report recommended that the Government should not ignore the strong support for a Voice referendum in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia.
Polling since 2017 has indicated a continuous growth in the numbers of Australians who will vote yes in a Voice referendum. The latest polling by CT Group from August 2021, indicates 59% of voters would support a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous Voice to Parliament in a referendum.
Polling done specifically on Indigenous people has also grown. Support is now at 80%. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who say they will vote yes, what compels them is that a voice is a unifying reform.
Which brings me to my call out to teachers to join the movement simply by teaching the Uluru Statement to children and their families.
The campaign for a constitutionally enshrined Voice is the most important campaign in our lifetimes. Whether we are advocating for the revitalising and preserving of First Nations languages, or truth-telling about this nation’s history; whether we are trying to strengthen our land rights; reform the justice system; gain greater resources to teach Indigenous culture and languages; or simply have more homes built in our remote communities – all that we do depends on our ability to build leverage and use it in a way that moves the nation’s ultimate decision makers in Canberra, and then to hold them to account if they fail or ignore us.
A constitutionally protected Voice precedes truth-telling in our priorities, firstly because truth-telling is happening. Great work is being done on truth telling including in schools. But truth-telling needs a representative Voice.
What is the truth of the past without the political power to use it for our future?
A constitutionally protected Voice precedes treaty, not exclusively – treaty talks are already happening in the states and Territories. A Voice must be established with urgency to support treaty making where First Nations have chosen to do so, because in a federal system, it is the Commonwealth we must reckon with more importantly than the states.
Finally, I reiterate these words: A constitutionally protected Voice.
We must constitutionally protect a Voice because governments like Howard’s will always come along. As a union member, I know that when a collective of grass roots people make those in power uncomfortable, they will move to silence them.
ATSIC was one of many Voices we built to defy a government’s mistreatment and cruelty, to bring our voices together in a chorus that was hard to ignore. It was silenced as were the Indigenous representative bodies that came before it. It is time to unite and build a structure of unity for First Nations that can never be silenced again.
I believe we can win a referendum to protect and empower our Voice.
And the movement toward success will be built in the classrooms and schools across Australia. The words of the Uluru Statement – how it covers pre-colonisation; our connection to Country; what sovereignty means to us; what the problems are and how they are unacceptable; how we can rectify them with recognition, a Voice, truth telling and a settlement – can be used in many creative ways that will engage children and young people. If teachers can imagine ways that will provide children and young people with the means to take home the invitation in the Uluru Statement, to the adults in their lives, our research shows that the adults in their lives are likely to decide to vote YES.
Thomas Mayor is a Kaurareg Aboriginal and Kalkalgal, Erubamle Torres Strait Islander man. He is a union official with the MUA and is an advocate in the campaign for a constitutionally enshrined Voice – the key proposal in the Uluru Statement. Thomas is the author of four books published by Hardie Grant Publishing, and has articles and essays published in The Guardian, Griffith Review, The Saturday Paper, and Sydney Morning Herald.
Rayanne Shakra and Jim Tognolini give clear and comprehensive advice to teachers on how to use modern definitions of assessment to better assess their students’ Higher Order Thinking Skills.
Defining Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) is no easy task. Research nearly forty years ago noted that “Defining thinking skills, reasoning, critical thought and problem solving is troublesome to both social scientists and practitioners. Troublesome is a polite word; the area is a conceptual swamp” (Cuban, 1984, p. 676). Four decades onwards not much has changed definition-wise, to clean-up the ‘conceptual swamp’. However, modern definitions of assessment have emerged that are useful in guiding teachers to better assess HOTS for students in any school year.
To produce evidence on how students think, teachers need to develop assessments that enable the students to demonstrate what it is they know, can do and value. For the purposes of this paper the focus will be on cognitive abilities and the following definition of assessment will be used. Assessment involves teachers making informed judgements based upon an image formed by the collection of information about student performance (Tognolini & Stanley, 2007). This image is used to monitor student growth (progress) through an area of learning or domain of knowledge. The higher levels of growth are differentiated by students having to demonstrate that they can do something with the knowledge that they have gained e.g., they can solve problems, think critically, evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies for solving problems.
Thinking is an internal process. Teachers cannot see this internal process, so they must depend on cognitive models and tools that can be used to categorise levels of learning. These models use verbs to describe the complexity of the thought processes students should demonstrate. Blooms’ revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) is one of these models.
This taxonomy is a powerful tool for teachers because it provides a way for teachers to differentiate between different levels of cognitive depth. It categorises learning into the following three domains: psychomotor, cognitive and affective. The cognitive domain. This domain involves six major categories to which students’ skills and abilities are listed from the simplest thinking behaviour, also known as the Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS), to the most complex, known as the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS). The taxonomy lists the skills in hierarchal order from the LOTS to the HOTS, as in Figure 1. These skills include the mental processes of remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating.
Figure 1Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy
The logic behind this hierarchy is that before students can understand a concept they must remember it; to apply a concept they must first understand it; to evaluate a process they must have analysed it; and to create an accurate conclusion, students must have completed a thorough evaluation. Students’ thinking progresses from the LOTS to the HOTS. While the skills are presented in hierarchical form, the way students’ skills are developed does not necessarily have to be linear, that is, the skills may overlap onto each other (Krathwohl, 2002).
The thought processes are usually linked to the verbs associated with the thinking level that teachers are aiming to teach or assess. The mention of the verb here is not the actual word denoting the verb, it is the thought process or action behind the meaning of the verb. If teachers want to assess critical thinking, they should not look at a question beginning with ‘criticise’, rather the focus should be on how the student is going to solve the task that is being set. That is, when the students have produced the evidence from answering the task, does their evidence indicate a higher level of cognitive functioning? It isn’t the verb but the manifestation of the response to what is requested in the task that indicates whether the students have demonstrated higher order thinking in this circumstance.
Learning, by its nature, is developmental. Teachers act as facilitators in assisting the students to grow in knowledge, skill and understanding through the teaching of subject content. As students gain more content knowledge, and can use this knowledge to demonstrate growth, then teachers are required to provide tasks that are cognitively more demanding, to tap into the higher order thinking of their students. The cognitive level needed to solve these tasks is generally referred to as the depth of knowledge associated with the task (Webb, 1997). Cognitively demanding tasks require the students to think and use the knowledge that they have gained to solve both real life problems and even conceptually abstract problems.
HOTS are not only fostered and assessed in both mainstream primary and secondary students of diverse racial and socio-economic backgrounds, but also for students in special education classes. In fact, students in years 9-12 enrolled in special education classes, and who were given cognitively challenging tasks, outperformed students without disabilities at the same year level and who were given tasks that were less challenging (King, Schroeder, and Chawszczewski, 2001). Teachers need to deliberately provide their students with tasks that academically challenge and engage them. Often teachers think that their classroom assessments incorporate higher order thinking however, most do not (Care, Kim, Vista & Anderson, 2018: Hoogland & Tout, 2018; McMillan, 2001; McMillan, Myran, & Workman, 2002). Teachers are teaching HOTS through many new pedagogical methods such as inquiry learning or Project-Based Learning, but are not assessing for these skills (Anderson, 2002).
Assessment is integral to teaching and learning (Baird, Andrich, Hopfenbeck, & Stobart, 2017). The success of HOTS development is determined by the alignment between learning outcomes to be achieved, as stated in curriculum documents, and the implemented assessments (Fitzpatrick & Schulz, 2015). The importance of teachers knowing the targeted HOTS they are teaching and assessing means that teachers need to actively engage in developing appropriate assessments and to use both formative and summative assessments together. Formative assessments provide timely, regular feedback that informs instruction as students learn increasingly complex tasks. Summative assessments are necessary to determine if standards have been met or if students can perform tasks that involve HOTS.
Devising HOTS tasks that can lead to the production of valued outcomes and can be recognised through intuitive understanding is quite burdensome. Teachers need to formulate HOTS tasks that require reasoned thinking on behalf of the students, and this is far from simple.
Therefore, it is important when planning for lessons to know where to incorporate HOTS in teaching sessions (Collins, 2014). Without prior planning, the tasks that teachers might end up requesting spontaneously may not lead to their students’ demonstrating HOTS.
Not every difficult task immediately measures HOTS. In fact, difficulty is not the same as cognitive depth. The difficulty of a task is usually determined by how many students can get the task correct. If very few students get it correct, it is a hard task for the group of students. If everyone gets it right, it is an easy task for the students.
This does not necessarily align with the cognitive depth of the task, nor the level of higher order thinking required to solve the task. Cognitive depth refers to the thought process, knowledge and skill required to solve the task. Hence planning beforehand, specifically for assessing HOTS, is key.
Professional Development and HOTS
For lasting changes to occur in education, it is imperative that teachers recognise necessary changes in learner expectations as well as the purpose of teaching: teaching students to think (Retna & Ng, 2016). In addition to the cognitive thinking models that teachers can utilise, they can also look at research that documents practices that encourage students to develop and practise higher quality thinking.
Professional development courses are a key factor in reviving teachers’ understandings and methods of implementing higher order thinking skills in our classrooms. Professional development courses should be structured in a way to provide teachers with a better understanding of what higher order thinking skills are. These courses also help teachers to conceptualise how the three categories of transfer, critical thinking, and problem solving are coherently interrelated in their instructional strategies.
Open All
Appendix A – Tips for writing HOTS tasks
The following are some tips for teachers to think about when they are writing HOTS tasks for their students:
First, teachers should focus the load of the item on the problem to solve rather than on the content.
Second, items that require students to predict the outcome of a situation are more suited for HOTS than simply labelling or listing.
Third, give them examples and ask for the principle, or theory, they illustrate.
Fourth, design items that permit multiple interpretations or solutions.
Fifth, the skill required to respond to the item is what determines the relative difficulty, not the verb used.
Sixth, make sure that the item is written in a way that makes it very clear to the students as to what is required of them in their responses.
Appendix B – Examples of tasks that promotes HOTS in students and assess their cognitive depth
The following are some examples of assessment tasks that help to both promote higher order thinking skills and assess their current cognitive depth:
Example 1:
Suggest a method, other than a vaccine, that scientists might develop to keep us safe from COVID. Then provide a short persuasive paragraph arguing why people should support this method.
This task can be given to students in any year. It is authentic and taps into the students’ creative thinking skills. Suggesting a new method other than the current ones available assumes students will formulate or create a new method. The persuasive text assumes that students will argue and provide an evaluative judgement of why their method should be accepted widely by the public.
To answer this the students will have to compile information together in ways that they have not yet been explosed to and combine content elements to propose new solutions. The answer to this question can be done collaboratively between the students and in conjunction with the teacher. This collaboration will spark higher order thinking because the students will acknowledge that the teacher does not know the answer and will work to devise one together.
Example 2:
The following is taken from NAPLAN year 3 Numeracy
This question presents the students with an unfamiliar scenario where they must extrapolate a mathematical pattern and apply it by making connections to more than one set of information. The students have to rotate the rectangle and make the connection of how the shapes within it will also vary and change their location.
Example 3:
The following is taken from NAPLAN year 5 Reading
Students are required to make connections between the meanings presented and the text. They also need to infer the meaning of each of the answer choices according to their comprehension of the text to be capable of providing a prediction of which answer best resembles the phrase in the question.
Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child neuropsychology, 8(2), 71-82.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001).A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York, NY: Longman.
Baird, J. A., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning: Fields apart?. Assessment in education: Principles, policy & practice, 24(3), 317-350.
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20 (24), p.1.
Brookhart, S.M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.
Care, E., Kim, H., Vista, A., & Anderson, K. (2018). Education system alignment for 21st century Skills: Focus on assessment. Center for Universal Education at The Brookings Institution.
Collins, R. (2014). Skills for the 21st century: teaching higher-order thinking. Curriculum & leadership journal, 12(14).
Cuban, L. (1984). Policy and research dilemmas in the teaching of reasoning: Unplanned designs. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 655-681.
FitzPatrick, B., & Schulz, H. (2015). Do curriculum outcomes and assessment activities in science encourage higher order thinking?.Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(2), 136-154.
Hoogland, K., & Tout, D. (2018).Computer-based assessment of mathematics into the twenty-first century: pressures and tensions. ZDM, 50(4), 675-686.
King, M. B., Schroeder, J., & Chawszczewski, D. (2001). Authentic assessment and student performance in inclusive schools. Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform (RISER) for Youth with disabilities brief. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED467479
Krathwohl, D.R., 2002. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), pp.212-218.
Lewis, A. and Smith, D., 1993. Defining higher order thinking. Theory into practice, 32(3), pp.131-137.
McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(1), 20-32.
McMillan, J. H., Myran, S., & Workman, D. (2002). Elementary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 203-213.
Retna, K. S., & Ng, P. T. (2016). The application of learning organization to enhance learning in Singapore schools.Management in Education, 30(1), 10-18.
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, 51(2), 129-145.
Webb, N.L., 1997. Determining alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. Nise Brief, 1(2), p.n2.
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.
Lisa Edwards
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.
Rayanne Shakra
Rayanne Shakra is a NESA sponsored scholarship doctoral student at the Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment CEMA) and a sessional academic at The University of Sydney.
The Supporting Students with Autism in 7-12 course is designed to
develop an understanding of the wide range of characteristics of students with Autism;
explore a range of strategies which address the needs of students with Autism in the areas of language and cognitive development, communication skills and social behaviour;
develop specific strategies to help students with Autism access the curriculum, manage their own stressful reactions and modify their behaviours.
Participants will also develop an understanding of how to set up an effective learning environment for students with Autism.
27 May 2026, Online via Zoom – COURSE FULL – please email cpl@nswtf.org.au to join the waiting list
“I found it incredibly useful. I will definitely be implementing the strategies from today in my classroom.”
“Thank you for a fantastic day – really opened by eyes to the complexity of it all.”
“Loved the tips and useful resources. The opportunities to work in groups and share ideas.”
“Great information! Can take so much back to the staffroom.”
Members who have completed the course
Dr Rose Dixon
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.
Completing Supporting Students with Autism in Years 7-12 will contribute 5 hours of NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) Accredited PD in the priority area of Students/children with Disability addressing standard descriptors 1.1.2 & 4.1.2 from the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers towards maintaining Proficient Teacher Accreditation in NSW.
Teachers in 7-12
$220 (Federation members only)
Face-to-face
JPL Article
Supporting students with Autism: Strategies that really work in the classroom
The Supporting Students with Autism in K-6 course is designed to:
develop an understanding of the wide range of characteristics of students with Autism ;
explore a range of strategies which address the needs of students with Autism in the areas of language and cognitive development, communication skills and social behaviour;
develop specific strategies to help students with Autism access the curriculum, manage their own stressful reactions and modify their behaviours
Participants will also write a social story that addresses the individual needs of students; and develop an understanding of how to set up an effective learning environment for students with Autism.
2 June 2026, Online via Zoom
18 May 2026, Surry Hills
Dr Rose Dixon
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.
Completing Supporting Students with Autism in Years K-6 will contribute 5 hours of NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) Accredited PD in the priority area of Students/children with Disability addressing standard descriptors 1.1.2 & 4.1.2 from the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers towards maintaining Proficient Teacher Accreditation in NSW.
Teachers in K-6
$220 (Federation members only)
JPL Article
Supporting students with autism: Strategies that really work in the classroom
