EduResearch Matters

EduResearch Matters is a blog for educational researchers in Australia to get their work and opinions out to the general public. Please join us here. We would love to get your comments and feedback about our work.
Gundlach on the ABC

Research impact: What I Learned From Being An ABC Media Expert For Two Weeks

Research impact, , , , ,

The ABC’s TOP 5 is a unique program where the national broadcaster works with a group of early career researchers across science, humanities and the arts. This year, the University of Melbourne’s Hugh Gundlach was one of the Humanities TOP5. He specialises in education, particularly in teacher retention and teachers’ work.

Amplifying your Research Impact through the Media

As academic researchers, we have a responsibility to share our findings beyond just peer-reviewed journals. The public and industry funds much of our work, so we should return that knowledge to its context by providing expert opinion supported by facts and evidence. Apart from helping attract funding and building profiles inside and outside institutions, media exposure allows us to start conversations in society and elevate stories beyond headlines.

I had the opportunity to spend two weeks at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) as part of their Top 5 Media Residency program. During this time, I learned how to retain the integrity of complex research while presenting it to a broader, non-academic media audience. I believe we can all benefit from the insights offered by this program.

Why Engage with the Media?

Media helps set and follow the public interest, but it can also fall prey to sensationalism and PR agendas. Academics can play a key role in elevating stories, providing context, and reducing sensationalism. Most people will never read a peer-reviewed journal, making the media an essential platform for reaching diverse and influential audiences, including policymakers, highly educated audiences, and the general public.

Media also allows academics to incorporate personal stories and case studies, elements typically absent from formal research outputs.

Storytelling is Key

The purpose of news media is to serve the public interest by exposing injustice, informing the population, but also entertaining. The ABC prides itself on sharing good stories, well told, without dumbing them down. They carefully consider who the audience is for each program, repeatedly asking why that audience should care about the content.

Good media coverage is fundamentally about storytelling. The ABC focuses on big issues told through engaging, human-centred stories. Ask yourself:

  • Does your research connect with any current societal issues?
  • Can you offer a fresh perspective on something in the news?
  • What part of your work will make people say, “Wow”?
  • What’s the one takeaway for the audience?

Use vivid language and imagery to bring your research to life.

Which Media Formats Should I Consider?

Being behind the scenes at the ABC helped me understand the range of media formats. Each requires a different approach:

Online Articles

Online articles offer features, opinion pieces, explainers and analysis. They need to be timely, impactful, locally relevant, surprising, containing conflict/tension, human interest and universal themes.

Articles are around 1,000 words with succinct  one sentence paragraphs, lots of subheadings, and engaging images every scroll. Most are read on phones, with an average two minute read time. High performers attract about 20,000 views with an average 4 minute read time.

Focus on making one key point very well. Use impactful quotes from other work, hyperlinking sources after the first three paragraphs to avoid sending readers away initially. 

Radio

People listen to radio news and talk programs to gain knowledge, hear stories of shared interest, and get help with their lives. As a guest, be passionate but remember it’s not for you – keep the conversation flowing without drifting off-topic. Find the human interest angle and use sensory details to create a narrative flow for the imagined listener of that program.

You may be brought in as an expert to provide context and perspective behind the headlines on live breakfast, afternoon or drivetime shows. Or you might pre-record an interview for a more specialised subject-based program, where you can tell richer stories and case studies in a friendly, informal environment.

Podcasts

Podcasts are even more niche, with segmented audiences actively seeking out that specific content. Listen to past episodes to understand the particular style – it could be a casual host chat, long-form interview, high production narrative or a daily news-style briefing. Whatever the format, your interviewing ability is key.

Types of Interviews

Interviews are guided conversations aimed at informing, discovering new insights, or holding someone accountable. For researchers, interviews are usually of the first two types.

Before agreeing to an interview, ask the journalist/producer who the audience is, what angle they’re taking, what areas they want to cover and who else they’re speaking to. It’s acceptable to decline interviews if you don’t feel qualified or confident in the treatment of the topic.

The producer will likely pre-interview you to prepare questions for the talent to ask. But the talent may still ask stereotypical questions the public is expecting – remember, the audience should be getting the most out of it. 

In an interview, answer the question you’re asked, not the one you’ve prepared for. Keep your language accessible, contextualise any statistics, and maintain a conversational tone. Try to answer questions as a fellow human, not just an academic!

How to Pitch Your Research

Producers are the gatekeepers for most media appearances. When pitching, be specific and personal—show them how your content aligns with their audience. Timing is critical. Reach out before 9 am and avoid Fridays.

Tailoring your pitch to relevant holidays or major events (e.g., ‘Back to school’, Exams, the Olympics, NAPLAN) can improve your chances. Be mindful of when Parliament is not sitting, as those weeks can create more opportunities for academic voices to be heard.

Don’t be discouraged if you don’t hear back immediately—media work often involves getting “bumped” or edited out. The key is to remain persistent, relevant and to make yourself known. Write articles for platforms like EduResearchMatters, The Guardian, or The Conversation, update your profile on your institution’s website, and connect with journalists covering your area of expertise, as well as any media teams within your institution.

Engaging with the media offers a valuable opportunity to share your research with a wider audience. By telling your story clearly and compellingly, you can contribute to important conversations, elevate public discourse, and make a lasting impact beyond academia.

Hugh Gundlach is a lecturer and researcher in the Faculty of Education at The University of Melbourne. He is one of the ABC Top 5 Media Residents (Humanities) for 2024. There are intakes for the ABC Top 5 in the Arts, Humanities and Sciences. Early career researchers are encouraged to apply in 2025.

How research-based news articles (like this one) accelerate research impact

Light sensitive

What should we do now for light sensitive learners?

children with disability, students with disability, , ,

A paradigm shift from medical model to social model of disability seems to have occurred – and nowhere is that more apparent than in the many responses to the Royal Commission on Disability. This shift adds impetus to the provision of adjustments for those I describe in my book, Light Sensitive Learners: Unveiling Policy Inaction, Marginalisation and Discrimination.  These are “light sensitive learners.” 

Under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), students experiencing visual stress and a sensitivity to lighting may be given a coloured overlay (which reduces white paper glare and filters the spectrum); access to natural lighting and/ or a personal lamp. 

Teachers have an obligation to provide such adjustments, wrote former NSW Minister for Education Adrian Piccoli in a letter to the MP for Ballina in 2014. However, many teachers don’t know about these obligations, and little, if anything, about light sensitivity and appropriate adjustments. 

If lighting causes visual strain, then the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Workplace Guidelines suggests:

Anti-glare filters for computer screens to relieve eye strain, fatigue, headaches and stress. Place blinds on windows. Flicker free lighting. Full spectrum lighting. Light filters for covering fluorescent lighting. Lower wattage overhead lights, task lighting or other alternative lighting. Large print. Coloured Paper.

Adjustments for light sensitivity are not new. Teachers in the USA ‘led the charge’ in 1908 because they wanted something done about the dazzle of white paper which made it difficult to read. Thanks to them, a ‘glarimeter’ was developed. School principal A. W. Ray argued in 1938 that artificial lighting was an “educational” problem because it made reading difficult. He worked out that “adequate spectral quality …is essential … for … seeing”. 

That was the era when fluorescent lighting was promoted by General Electric and people started complaining about visual stress. By 1929, palliative light spectrum filtering (coloured) lenses had become common in NSW. Then they were forgotten.

Governments did nothing about the spectral qualities of lighting. But, half a century later, entrepreneurs (a school psychologist and a professor of psychology) promoted light spectrum filtering lenses again. Ophthalmologists reacted and claimed light spectrum filters are just  a placebo!  But visual perception lies within the discipline of psychology and not ophthalmology and the NHMRC is recommending light filters for overhead artificial illumination!  

 The spectral quality of artificial lighting in schools is still a problem. White paper is whiter because manufacturers have added fluorescent dye as a marketing strategy. Those who prescribe palliative light spectrum filtering (coloured) lenses compete for business. Many people can’t afford light spectrum filtering lenses, even if they know about them.

But teachers can, and ought to, provide adjustments for light sensitive learners. Why? Think about visual perception, a dynamic interactive process between light/eye/brain. Changing lighting changes visual perception. Visual perception impacts on most daily activities, including driving, playing sport and – reading. How could it not? This light sensitivity/visual perceptual problem is not just about reading, but reading is what most teachers, parents and researchers are interested in.

Teachers, along with parents, picked up the baton for light sensitive learners in the late 1980s at Alstonville High School in NSW and  developed a policy for them (the only one in the world, to my knowledge and I write about this in my book). Academic results improved. Students told us that light spectrum filters or coloured paper take “the glare away and [take] away the movement [of words] quite a bit”. Some professionals don’t believe them. They say that schools should use evidence, but a student’s experience is not the type of evidence they want so they don’t ask for it.

No one picked up the baton and ran with it throughout Australia. No one ran with it throughout the world. Why not? There are several reasons including –  vested interests! What are those vested interests? The lighting industry, the remedial reading industry, and the coloured lens industry.

The lighting industry is not accountable to any government. The Australian Standards authority in conjunction with the New Zealand Standards Authority (AS/NZ) has total control. More lights, more money and– who cares about spectral quality?

Some people in the remedial reading industry disparage coloured lenses. They are not ‘Magic Glasses’– they don’t cure dyslexia or learning disabilities. But, the problem is not dyslexia, and it’s not a problem with learning, it’s a problem with light sensitivity and visual perception. However, if light sensitivity and visual perceptual anomalies were acknowledged, the need for remedial reading might drop and that would reduce profit. So they would say that wouldn’t they?   

“The global coloured lens market in 2022 is valued at USD 5403.28 million” and growing. Allegedly, there’s a “surge of eye disorders”. That’s good for ophthalmic professionals but, as Ray discovered back in 1938, artificial lighting was the problem, not his eyes. A significant number of six-year-old children in Sydney, experienced symptoms of “eye strain”, but researchers demonstrated in 2006 that “the vast majority had normal eye examinations”. Is light sensitivity their problem? 

If teachers do nothing, the consequences for light sensitive learners include reduced academic results; visual fatigue, headaches, and lowered self esteem. A cumulative effect may be inattention and poor behaviour. Moreover, compliance with the DDA is mandatory. 

Begin to shift attitudinal and environmental barriers by asking, “Would you like me to turn the lights off?”

Wendy Johnson PhD  negotiated inclusion of the term “learning differently” in the Australian Disability Discrimination Act when working as a secondary school teacher. She has also worked as a tutor and lecturer in the tertiary sector but is now an independent public policy scholar and advocate for light sensitive people.

Palestine teachers

Palestine: is it possible for teachers to be neutral?

anti-colonialism, civics and citizenship education, , , , , ,

Interest in Palestine amongst students and the wider public raises an age-old question regarding the teaching profession: can educators be neutral and objective? Is it possible for teachers to discuss what is happening right now across the Gaza Strip in ways that maintain an ‘unbiased’ position? 

State governments and conservative commentators have attacked teachers who have shown solidarity with Palestine or have dared to discuss the current genocide in Gaza within schools. The NSW Minister for Education, Pru Carr, has taken issue with teachers who wear Palestinian scarves in schools. She has said, “We rely on them [teachers] to be impartial in the classroom.” Similarly, Victorian Education Minister, Ben Carroll, warned educators about participating in any organised activity in support of Palestine. Carroll stated that ‘teachers in government schools must be unbiased and not have political agendas’. 

Students in Australian schools want to talk about Palestine

For over a year, we have seen school students assemble and actively rally in support of school students in Gaza. Not since the student climate protests have we seen such enthusiasm amongst Australian students. In almost every capital city, and some regional areas, students have participated in strikes in solidarity with Palestinians. In the course of mobilising, we are witnessing students become ‘active and informed’ on Palestine. Yet, school students participating in these strikes have been scolded by politicians and conservative commentators. They have told students to stay in class and ‘educate’ themselves. 

Take the NSW Premier, Chris Minns. He condemned the student strikes, stating: “If you [students] want to change the world, get an education.” A student protesting in Wollongong responded, ‘Because I am educated I am here, because I am informed I am here at this rally … I would love to be at school, I would love for the children of Gaza to be at school’. 

Similarly, hundreds of school students in Melbourne defied the Victorian Education Minister’s condemnation of their strike. The Minister Ben Carroll said students should be in school. A parent of a student protestor responded, “Young people are often presented as being naïve or ignorant and shouldn’t have an opinion when it comes to politics – I disagree.” Another student stated, “They’re not really teaching it in class. So the only way you’re going to find out is if you come to the rallies; educate yourself because you’re not learning any of it at school. It’s not even getting mentioned at school.”

Educators are told to be ‘impartial’ and ‘unbiased’ about Palestine

Similar to students, educators themselves have organised ‘Teachers for Palestine’ groups across NSW and Victoria. These groups have led rallies and held Zoom sessions to discuss incorporating content about Palestine in the curriculum. They have also discussed how to support students currently striking for Palestine. Two major groups include Teachers and School Staff for Palestine – NSW and Teachers/Staff for Palestine in Victoria. In some cases, educators have shown solidarity by openly supporting student strikes and wearing Palestinian Keffiyehs (scarves) or watermelon badges. 

Teacher unions have supported these initiatives and even passed motions that acknowledge the rights of teachers to discuss the current genocide with their students. For example, the NSW Teachers Federation Vice-President pointed out educators have a long history of publicly supporting anti-war and social justice causes. Similarly, the Australian Education Union sent its members a bulletin about the right to respectfully discuss Palestine in classrooms.

Recently, on the eve of ‘R U Ok Day’, the NSW Teachers for Palestine group posted the following:

Teaching is a political act

A common argument for teacher neutrality is that it avoids students being brainwashed. But the purpose of critical approaches to citizenship education is not to tell students what to think. It is to support them to ask questions. When the questions are curtailed, we all lose as a democracy, and we lose the opportunity to challenge injustice.

A second argument for neutrality, or more precisely, silence, is that there is no room for politics in the curriculum. However the Australian Curriculum encourages engagement with the world and with the interests that students bring across multiple subject areas. Recognising what students bring with them to school should include recognising that they are developing an understanding of conflict and politics before they enter the classroom door. There is no point pretending that politics does not exist.

All education is political

We commonly engage initial teacher education students with theories of critical pedagogies. For example, Paulo Freire argued in his landmark book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed that ‘all education is political; teaching is never a neutral act’. Similar words were echoed by bell hooks, who wrote in Teaching to Transgress that ‘no education is politically neutral’. More recently, a pioneer of critical pedagogy Henry Giroux wrote: “Those arguing that education should be neutral are really arguing for a version of education in which no one is accountable.”

Teachers are citizens and workers. They have political opinions and many are members of labour organisations. They are also responsible for helping their students to become informed, questioning and critical citizens. Pressure from educational authorities for teachers to hide their beliefs and opinions is damaging for both students and teachers.

Governments are keen to avoid political or politicised topics. Their eyes are more firmly on  negative media attention than on ethical considerations. A slippery standard is therefore applied. Almost any topic can become politicised or attract media attention, which makes schools increasingly timid. And attempts to silence discussion are applied unevenly even with similar issues. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have been treated very differently by governments and inside schools, despite the fact that both have similarities in raising sensitive issues of conflict and trauma.

The teaching profession cannot be neutral, unbiased nor objective

As citizens, teachers and students take on multiple roles. They constantly give off signals about their beliefs, even if in subtle or unrecognised ways. As long as these support the status quo, they are unquestioned. But when they go against the status quo, there is a need to make claims on the rights that all students and teachers have to express themselves. A long tradition in critical scholarship shows that ‘apolitical education’ is a myth. What is often framed as ‘neutrality’ and ‘objectivity’ within education systems stems from Eurocentric white supremacy. 

Palestine presents us with a reminder that education can never be neutral. As outlined previously, many teachers and students wish to engage in discussions about Palestine. The Australian curriculum presents many opportunities despite the condemnation that various Education Ministers have offered. It is this contradiction that affirms how neutrality in the context of an on-going genocide, live streamed to the social media devices of our students can be one that supports it, as Paulo Freire himself once said, ‘Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral’. 

From left to right: Ryan Al-Natour works as a lecturer in teacher education at Charles Sturt University on Wiradjuri Country. He is written widely about antiracist teaching, social justice pedagogies and Indigenous education. Joel Windle is an associate professor of education at the University of South Australia. He has undertaken research on educational inequalities and community activism in Australia and Brazil. Sarah McDonald is a lecturer based at the Centre for Research in Education & Social Inclusion at the University of South Australia where she conducts research in the areas of gendered subjectivities, social mobility, social barriers, and inequalities in education.

inclusive education

Inclusive education: it’s not getting better. What should we do next?

Inclusive Education, , , , ,

For decades, debates around inclusive education have persisted, with systems globally striving to make schools more inclusive. Yet, how much progress has truly been made? Despite years of reform and substantial financial investment, increasing numbers of students are being excluded or removed from schools. In Australia, no state or territory government has fully committed to inclusive schooling. That leaves the responsibility for inclusion largely on individual schools. In the ongoing debate, the founding principles of inclusion have been overshadowed, despite our classrooms being more diverse than ever.

Interpretations vary

Interpretations of inclusive education vary. In its purest form, inclusion means that all students are educated at their local school. However, this is far more complex in practice. Many schools that claim to be fully inclusive are, in reality, operating under models resembling the integration strategies of the 1980s and 1990s rather than true inclusion. To be “included” implies being part of or brought into something. Yet we rarely ask whether what we are including students into is actually worthwhile. While inclusive education offers clear benefits, there is an urgent need to shift our focus away from the notion of inclusion to providing a good education for all.

Reflecting on the current state of education, it is evident that the vision of inclusion has fallen short. It has also become narrowly associated with accommodating students with disabilities. The current model of inclusive education is not just limited, it is flawed. School leaders and teachers are under immense pressure. In many cases they are expected to meet the needs of all students without adequate knowledge or support. Many schools attempt to implement inclusive education using an outdated integration model, rather than working to establish inclusion as the usual way of doing things. This can leave teachers working in isolation to navigate the complexities of making lessons more inclusive, manage challenging classroom behaviours, whilst also improving academic outcomes. This balancing act is unsustainable, and often leads to burnout, frustration, and negative attitudes among educators. At its worst, it leads to attrition.

Is inclusive education attainable?

A huge burden has been placed at the feet of school leaders and teachers. Schools are expected to meet the needs of all students with an education system premised on structures not all that far removed from what they were many decades ago. School leaders and teachers want students to succeed. But they are struggling to figure out how to meet the increasingly diverse needs of students within a system that expects continuous improvement in academic outcomes while providing limited resources.

Evidence suggests that increasing student engagement is key to improving outcomes for all students. Yet, school leaders and teachers are faced with ever increasing rates of scrutiny, standardisation and accountability. This is a result of systems operating within a neoliberal paradigm that often seems more focused on metrics than on the provision of good education. Headlines frequently highlight the failures of schools and apportion blame to poor leadership and teaching. 

Like integration in the 1980s, the notion of inclusion as it stands now carries with it baggage attached to years of heated debate and very public failures. We argue that inclusive education, within the current educational zeitgeist, is an illusion. Today, more students are being suspended and excluded than ever before. Homeschooling numbers are rising. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves. And school leaders are experiencing harmful levels of stress. Now is the time to move beyond inclusion. 

Illuminating good education

It is time to shift our focus to what truly matters – providing a good education to all students. Rather than clinging to the illusion of inclusion, let’s take this opportunity to rethink our education system. A broader, more responsive and flexible approach is needed, one that genuinely serves the diversity of all students. This requires rethinking policies, providing better support for teachers, and ensuring that schools are adequately resourced.

The notion of a good education prompts us to consider the very purpose of education. What do we hope to achieve with compulsory education? How can we ensure that every student benefits from their schooling experience? At its core, the purpose of education is to prepare students for life beyond the classroom. Education should aim to foster a love of learning, encourage curiosity, and help students develop the skills they need to navigate an ever-changing world.

Moving forward

We need a shift in mindset and we need to stop thinking about inclusive education as something to be implemented or attained. We need to stop framing it as one policy agenda that is often in conflict with other educational reforms. Repositioning the debate to one centred on good education asks us to step back and see the bigger picture. It forces us to bring together the various components of education that are too often managed in silos and view it as a single construct.

Governments around the world need to rethink the way they ‘do’ schooling. This means overhauling outdated structures, processes and models of practice. It requires a change at every level, from school design to curriculum development to assessment requirements. Funding models need to be restructured to ensure all students have access to the resources they need. Governments need to work with universities as both research partners and teacher education providers. Voices of communities are fundamental to this conversation, allowing for dialogue to co-create powerful educational policies that can drive sustainable change.

The next challenge

The challenge to move from a debate around inclusive education to one that centres on a good education is significant. But so is the opportunity. Leaders and teachers require policies, resources, and supports necessary to respond to the needs of all students in an equitable way. Prioritising a good education for every child and young person can ensure each student is given an opportunity to thrive. This notion can no longer be positioned as an illusion. With changes to the structures of schooling, it becomes a realistic and achievable goal. Perhaps more importantly, it becomes a moral imperative.

From left to right: Christopher Boyle is Professor of Inclusion and Educational Psychology and the Associate Head (Research) in the School of Education at the University of Adelaide. Joanna Anderson is an associate professor in inclusive education and educational leadership and Associate Head (Learning and Teaching) in the School of Education at the University of Adelaide. Tom Porta is a lecturer and Master of Education Program Director at the University of Adelaide.

teacher expertise

Are we now gaslighting teacher expertise?

Curriculum review, teacher expertise, , , ,

Curriculum reform is underway in NSW, including the development and implementation of new syllabuses from kindergarten to year 12. Recent media coverage presents this reform as a ‘silver bullet’ for improving teaching and student outcomes. But there is a troubling undertone regarding teachers’ curriculum work in general – a subtle gaslighting of teachers’ curricular expertise and professionalism.

This builds on what Nicole Mockler describes, as a gaslighting of the teaching profession as a whole, in her forthcoming discussion paper “On Gaslighting, Moral Purpose, and Trust: Some Reflections on the Future of Teaching” Monash University Inquiry into the Future of the Teaching Profession.

Here’s what I’ve discovered from my own research engaging with early career teachers. They want to be curriculum-makers, not just curriculum deliverers.

Misunderstanding teachers’ curriculum work

Syllabuses are important materials in teachers’ day-to-day experiences in schools. Ensuring these official materials are clear and detailed for teachers is important and necessary. But we must also recognise teacher’s engagement with curriculum is a complex social practice.

It goes further than just listing content and outcomes in a document and believing that ‘delivery’ of these with ‘fidelity’ will resolve issues regarding teaching quality. Teachers are more than just passive conduits of curriculum.

Their curriculum work is a dynamic interpretative process. The quality of educative experiences in a classroom is dependent on teacher capabilities and opportunities that support them in transforming content into meaningful learning experiences.

Recent media coverage is largely and notably silent on this vital aspect of teachers’ curriculum work.  The focus has been on the troubled nature of past NSW syllabuses being “more open to interpretation”. These comments reveal a misunderstanding by some regarding the importance and value of teachers’ curricular interpretation in ensuring a classroom curriculum that is local, contextually relevant, and responsive to student needs and lived experiences. The silence surrounding teacher expertise and interpretation of curriculum points to a broader issue – the outsourcing of teachers’ curriculum knowledge and expertise in the name of a ‘teacher proof’ curriculum.

Gaslighting teachers’ curricular expertise

Underpinning current commentary on the new NSW syllabuses is a troublesome devaluing of teachers’ professional judgement and expertise with curriculum. This is apparent in recent conversations suggesting that teachers need access to externally vetted curriculum materials, and “directions on which lesson plans to use”. 

Here, mistrust in teachers’ knowledge and professional judgement is rife, disguised among seemingly innocent concerns for lessening the curriculum ‘burden’ on teachers’ workloads. 

This is nothing more than gaslighting; an attempt to convince teachers that they lack the required capacity to make such decisions or are too busy for curriculum matters and therefore it is ok for this important work to be outsourced to others. In reality, teachers value this curriculum work highly. They want more time for collaborative planning with their colleagues – not less, not outsourced. 

Don’t get me wrong – all teachers need supporting materials and shared resources, but they also need time and space to build their curricular expertise. This is about strengthening their understanding of the curriculum and the adjustments and transformations needed in ensuring best fit with their students and chosen pedagogical strategies (not just explicit teaching!). Time is of the essence here in how we respond to this gaslighting, raising awareness that attempts for further prescription and outsourcing of teachers’ curriculum and pedagogical work does little more than deskill our profession.  

What are we wanting? Teacher as deliverer or curriculum-maker?

While the NSW Curriculum reform proposes greater clarity and guidance for teachers, the implementation of these new syllabuses should offer us pause for thought. 

What kind of role do teachers want with the curriculum? What do they need to maintain strong curriculum identities? My own research with early career teachers points to their strong motivations and aspirations to be more than just curriculum deliverers, but curriculum-makers who are trusted and respected to make necessary and responsive curriculum choices within their local context. 

My research also suggests that the same goes too for our preservice teachers entering the profession. Critical dialogue is crucial, then, within this current reform context. School leaders, teacher educators, and the concerned public should respect the curricular aspirations of our teachers. This requires us to push back against concerning trends for ‘cookie cutter’ approaches to teaching, and with that, an outsourcing of teachers’ curriculum expertise to others as an attempt for greater ‘fidelity’ between schools and classrooms. 

Re-frame conversations

We need to re-frame conversations between teachers, school leaders, policymakers, and the broader public, moving beyond assumptions that changes to official curriculum materials offer the best and only solution. We need to listen more carefully to teachers’ voices and what they want to achieve in their curricular practice:

If I could just spend my time how I wanted to, I would obviously work hard, but if I could just spend my time planning lessons that I thought were really awesome, were really good for my learners and great for the content I was teaching, and then I could evaluate them properly, then I think I would feel like ‘ok I am benefiting society and doing the big picture thinking and fostering a love of learning in these students’ and these are the things that you go into teaching for. (First year teacher, public school in Sydney)

Creating conditions that enable this kind of work remain largely absent in conversations surrounding the implementation of the new NSW syllabuses. 

Teachers need time

Teachers need time, space, and support (not prescription or centralised materials), to help them sustain curriculum as a recognisable tenet of their professionalism. The implications of enabling school-level conditions to do this are immense, not only in promoting greater trust and regard for teachers, but importantly, for student learning and equity. A curriculum made by teachers, not others, shapes the quality of students’ access to knowledge and new ways of thinking for their future. 

Phillip Poulton is a lecturer in education (primary) at the RMIT University, Melbourne. He completed his PhD studies focusing on primary teachers’ classroom curriculum-making experiences and is published in a number of Australian and international research journals. Prior to working in initial teacher education, he worked as a primary classroom teacher and as a head of curriculum in a large public school in Australia. He is on Twitter @PhillipPoulton

early learning

Here are five ways the government could demolish barriers to early learning

Early Childhood, Early childhood education and care, , , ,

The Final Report from the Productivity Commission (PC) into Early Childhood Education and Care was released last week. This is the second in our two-part series unpacking the Commission’s proposed road map for universal access to early learning.

Yesterday: Early learning – Every child deserves access now. Here’s how we can make that happen

Today, we look at the barriers.

To implement Productivity Commission recommendations for early learning, the Government needs to attract, support, and retain educators to ensure the workability of these reforms. In this article, I outline the barriers facing educators, including poor job design, the high cost of higher education, low status and wages, and the burden of regulatory requirements as shown in the figure below.

Figure 1: Barriers to opportunity for early learning in Australia

For each of these barriers, I provide information from reports, government departments,
agencies, and organisations. To illustrate this, I also provide either data from our mixed
methods online survey study involving 82 Australian educators or, where indicated, publicly
available data. A summary of what the PC said is in the final column.

Barriers to
early learning		InformationDataProductivity Commission
Recommendation
Poor job designIt is puzzling to
understand why schools in
Australia are equipped
with administrative
officers, grounds people
and cleaners, but early
learning services are not.
Educators study child
development, philosophies
of learning, ways to
support children’s
learning, curriculum
assessment, planning and
evaluation and how to best
support families. Then
they enter the workforce
and are expected to spend
inordinate amounts of
time cleaning and filling
in forms. It is a waste of
their time and talents.
Additionally, the time
allocated to filling out all
the forms would be
adequate if they were in a
private office rather than
while they are educating a
room full of children. The
amount of time doesn’t
take into consideration if
they are short staffed.		“Washing and folding
laundry is NOT
something you learn in
an education
qualification …
educators spend a lot of
time (and constantly
hounded by
management) to do
tasks that in other
workplaces would
require [a] cleaner”.
(Educator)
“Most adults would
struggle to fill in legal
paperwork while also
supervising children
attempting risky
climbing, playing
games, drinking a
bottle, putting small
parts in their mouth.”
(Educator)		The PC states
further award
increases must
improve their pay
and conditions to
align with school
teachers.
High cost of higher educationGaining the qualifications
required to be an early
childhood educator takes a
toll on educators’ time,
energy, and budget. While
the Government is now
funding practicums, and
some state and territory
governments are offering
fee-free places, the educator must provide the time and
energy to study.
This can mean fewer days
working or sacrifices to
their health, social life,
and relationships.		“Educators are being
rushed through
traineeships to meet
DoE requirements, so
are ECT[s]!”
(Educator)
“I would love to do
more but don’t have the hours in the day. I
exercise each morning
at 6am before I start
work.” (Educator)		The PC asks for
more support for
student educators
in general terms.
Low statusDue to their links to
motherhood, another
underappreciated role,
early childhood educators
are less respected than
school teachers in
Australian society, even
though they may be just as
qualified. Those teaching
younger age groups can be
more affected. Studies
link low status with
educator burnout.		“I was in a centre
where staff weren’t
valued. Relationships
were for show”.
(Educator)
“Cleaners can earn
more than I do, and yet
I studied for 2 years for
a diploma to earn just
$32hr. We are
sacrificed so that other
women can go to work
and earn a high wage.”
(Educator)		The PC
recommends
standardising
school teacher
and early
childhood
educator
registration to
improve
recognition.
Low wagesLow wages mean
educators struggle to pay
their bills and enjoy a
reasonable quality of life.
This impacts their health
and wellbeing and their
feelings of burnout. The
increase of 15% helps, but
does not mean their pay is
in line with school teacher
salaries for early
childhood teachers with
the same qualifications.		“I earn $30 per hour as
a qualified ECT with a
degree – my 17-year-
old daughter is in high
school and gets the
same amount of money,
as a swimming
instructor”. (Educator)		The PC states
further award
increases must
improve their pay
to align with
school teachers.
Burdensome
regulatory
requirements		Educators spend much of
their day filling in forms
to prove they are
providing high quality
education and care.
Administrative overload
was one of the three
reasons given by
educators who reported
they wanted to leave the
sector early.		“Yes, we need
paperwork but we also
need to be there for the
children, staff get
overwhelmed with all
the paperwork required
and training that needs
to be done during a
work day and there is
never enough time to do
everything so a lot of
staff do things at
home”. (Educator)		The PC calls for
reducing the
administrative
burden for
applying for
inclusion support
funding but
disappointingly,
not for other
aspects of their
work.

What governments must do

The Government will need to consider the PC’s recommendations carefully and it could also heed the advice of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP). Professor Nitin Kapur, President of the RACP’s Paediatric and Child Health Division, said the RACP was pleased to see the PC recognise the importance of access to high-quality learning and care in the early years of a child’s life.

“As experts in children’s health and wellbeing, we have long advocated for universal access to early childhood education and care because we recognise the profound positive impact it can have on children’s lives.

“Access to high-quality learning and care in the early years can help boost health, social andcognitive development outcomes for children, and ensure that they start school ready.

To stem the flow of educators out of the sector, entice educators back, and attract more, they need a range of measures to improve educators’ working conditions. Our educators deserve much better.

Marg Rogers is a senior lecturer in early childhood education at UNE and a postdoctoral fellow at the Manna Institute.

Early learning

Early learning: Every child deserves access now. Here’s how we can make that happen

Early Childhood, Early childhood education and care, , , , ,

The Final Report from the Productivity Commission (PC) into Early Childhood Education
and Care was released last week. This two-part series unpacks the Commission’s proposed road map that involves many stages over the next 12 years to achieve universal access to early learning.

This is where all children can attend three days a week, regardless of location, ethnicity,
special educational needs, family income, or parent’s work or study schedules.
Universal access is critical because research shows access to early learning improves
children’s chances of a good start to school and increases their ability to flourish into
adulthood.

The PC said the recent improvements in wages through the Fair Work Commission will assist
with the attraction and retention of educators. The Commission states these recent rises are
only one step and that future awards need to consider the 20 per cent pay difference and poorer
conditions between the school and early learning sectors, even for educators with the same
qualifications. It also recommends registration be the same to improve status for early
childhood educators.

These are all excellent recommendations, but many educators continue to leave a sector in
crisis before the recommendations are implemented.

Why is the sector in crisis?

At its heart, the early childhood education and care sector is supposed to provide
opportunities for early learning. This is one of the key components of the internationally
accepted Nurturing Care Framework by the World Health Organisation, World Bank Group, and UNICEF. This framework is designed to show how children’s health and wellbeing is best supported to ensure children reach their potential.

Figure 1: Nurturing Care Framework

In Australia, children and their families face many barriers to these opportunities, as shown in
the table below. These include affordability, high levels of privatisation, a lack of services and educators, complex funding and access to funding, extra challenges in regional, rural and remote (RRR) communities, and access to inclusion support.

In the table below, I provide information from reports, government departments, agencies,
and organisations on these eight barriers. To illustrate this, I also provide either data from
our mixed-methods online survey study involving 82 Australian educators or, where
indicated, publicly available data. In the final column, I summarise what the PC states or
recommends the Government to do.

Barriers to early learning and how to overcome them

Barriers to early learningInformationDataProductivity
Commission
(PC) responses
1. AffordabilityAustralia is second only to
Switzerland in its high
costs of early childhood
education and care fees.		“It’s very sad and hard
for me to share this
story. We have no
support and can’t afford
daycare for my 11-
month-old boy. I work
casually and I’m 8
weeks pregnant. We
have to get an abortion
because we don’t get
any support.” (The
Parenthood, p. 33).		The PC
recommends free
services for low-
income families,
with fees rising
for those with
higher incomes.
2. High levels of
privatisation		Australia has some of the
highest levels of
privatisation of early
learning services in the
world. In 2020, 49% of
providers were private for-
profit, and about a third of
these were large providers
with 25 or more services.		Early childhood
education and care
(ECEC) is big business.
The sector turns over
$14 billion annually
across 16,000 centres
providing long day care
(LDC), preschool and
out of school care. The
importance of giving
young Australians the
best start in life and
encouraging workforce
participation is
recognised in the public
funding that sustains the
sector, currently around
$11 billion per annum.
This is distributed to
providers ranging from
council-run
kindergartens to stock
market-listed early
learning chains. Among
The PC
recommends
incentives for
local parent,
community
groups and
councils to start
services.
LDC provision, where
the bulk of government
subsidies flow, private
for-profit (PFP)
providers dominate.”
(United Workers Union,
p. 3).		The PC
recommends
incentives for
local parent,
community
groups and
councils to start
services.
3. Lack of servicesDue to the market supply
model, all regional, rural,
remote, and low-income
metropolitan suburbs are
part of a ‘childcare desert’.
“Childcare shouldn’t be
a postcode lottery.
Improving the
affordability and
accessibility of
childcare is once in a
generation economic
policy.” (Former NSW
Treasurer, Matt Kean)		The PC says
Government
stewardship is
needed to ensure
universal access.
4.Lack of
educators

In 2024, vacancies for
educators reached 8000
setting a new record. This
impacts staff fatigue and
morale, the quality of
education and care,
and the amount of support
available for families.
PC says the ‘workforce is
fundamental to reform’
and calls for ‘improve
measures to support the
ECEC workforce’ from
2025.		“Management [were]
very stressed about
assessment and rating
and low staff numbers,
so took it out on the
employees”. (Educator)
Q: What does quality
ECEC mean to you?
“Having more than
enough staff to ensure
educators are consistent
for children in care and
to ensure quality care
can occur even when
educators are sick and
require a day off to
recover”. (Educator)
5. Complex
funding model		‘The ECEC system is
complex and continues
to evolve in response to
the changing needs of
children, families and
society. … a range of
current system
challenges and
opportunities have been
identified.’ (The Front
Project, p. 6)		The PC
recommends a
new national
agreement to
simplify roles
and funding.		The PC
recommends a new
national
agreement to
simplify roles
and funding.
6. Complex access to
funding		Accessing subsidies is a
complex process for parents
to navigate. Strict rules about eligibility and
long wait times for
processing claims can add
to family stress during a
cost-of-living crisis.		“I’m struggling to navigate the website to
figure out if we qualify
and if so how much. I
get that there’s a bunch
of circumstances, but
maybe someone will
know if it’s worth trying
to navigate the multiple
questions and pages
that require lots of
effort from me, to have
it say ‘no go away’ at
the end.” (Reddit
forum).		The PC roadmap includes a
recommendation
for welfare and
tax reform for
parents and
reduce the
complexity of the CCS and abolish
the activity test.
7. Choiceless
in regional,
rural and
remote
communities		While a lack of choice and
availability affects those
who live in metropolitan
areas, for those in many
regional, rural and remote
locations, there are no
services close by. This
means families are
choiceless.		“When the kids are on
the farm you can
question whether you’re
exposing them to things
you shouldn’t
necessarily expose them
to. Should they be on a
sprayer? Maybe not.
But you’ve got to do
what you’ve got to do.”
(The Parenthood. p. 91)		PC recommends
grants and low
interest loans to
encourage
services to start
in these
locations.
8. Lack of
access for
inclusion
support		Children with special
educational needs can have
difficulty accessing early
learning or finding the
level of support they need.
Many have to wait until
school to engage in
education services.		‘Children with disability
are often woefully under
supported in early
childcare settings. My
complex kid can’t
access childcare.’
( Sourcekids )
The PC
recommends
major reforms to
ensure all
children have
access to early
education.

Tomorrow:

In the second article, I explore some of the challenges facing educators and what the PC
recommends the Government does to improve the sector.

The Government will need to consider the PC’s recommendations carefully. Families are
struggling to access early learning for their children, which has enormous consequences for
their future and their ability to work. Our families and children deserve much better.

Marg Rogers is a senior lecturer in early childhood education at UNE and a postdoctoral fellow at the Manna Institute.

Cyberabuse and deepfakes

Cyberabuse: It’s too late – the post has gone viral already

bullying, cyberabuse, teacher targeted bullying and harassment, , , , ,

The Albanese government’s proposed legislation to outlaw doxing is a landmark move in Australia’s fight against online harassment and cyber abuse. This new bill, introduced this month, makes it a criminal offence to maliciously share personal data with the intent to cause harm, with penalties of up to seven years in jail. 

Doxing, which involves publicly revealing someone’s personal details without consent, is a growing concern in an era where personal information can be weaponised through digital platforms. Under this legislation, doxing based on attributes such as race, religion, gender identity, or sexuality will carry even harsher penalties, signalling the government’s commitment to protecting Australians from online harm.

Crucial time

This legislation comes at a crucial time. Schools and teachers increasingly face new forms of cyber abuse, particularly fuelled by advancements in artificial intelligence (AI). Deepfake technology, which allows users to create fake images and videos of real people, has led to disturbing incidents in educational settings. In Victoria, for example, several schools have been rocked by cases where students used AI to create fake pornographic images of their teachers. These images, manipulated from photos taken from social media, were circulated among students, devastating the lives and careers of the teachers involved. Many schools have seen incidents occur, forcing teachers to seek mental health support and raising urgent questions about the adequacy of current school policies on cyber abuse.

These incidents are not isolated to Australia. In the United States, a teacher in Baltimore was recently arrested for creating a deepfake audio recording of his principal making racist comments. The hoax, which went viral, resulted in death threats against the principal and serious disruption to the school community. This case, while unique in its specifics, highlights the global reach and implications of AI-driven content creation tools. Teachers are increasingly vulnerable to this kind of targeted abuse, with their professional and personal reputations on the line in a digital world that moves faster than policies and protections can keep up.

How teachers experience cyber abuse

My recent paper, It’s Too Late – The Post Has Gone Viral Already, explores how K-12 teachers are experiencing adult cyber abuse, particularly when content about them goes viral. The paper proposes a novel methodological stance that incorporates trauma-informed qualitative research and aligns with the principles outlined in Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021. This act, designed to empower the eSafety Commissioner, provides an essential framework for addressing online harm by requiring greater transparency from platforms and placing legal responsibility on social media companies for the content they amplify.

Through my research which aligns with the findings of the eSafety Commissioner, I found that the abuse teachers face isn’t just about direct attacks. It’s about how social media platforms enable and perpetuate that abuse through algorithms designed to boost engagement at any cost. When content targeting teachers goes viral, it’s often because these algorithms push harmful memes, videos, or posts to broader audiences, exponentially increasing the damage done. The viral nature of this content—whether a manipulated deepfake or a malicious rumour—means that even teachers not directly involved in an incident can experience secondary trauma as they witness their colleagues being publicly humiliated.

A tsunami of challenges

This paper is just the beginning. The introduction of legislation to address doxing and the growing awareness of deepfakes mark the start of a tsunami of challenges that educators will face in the coming years. Artificial intelligence, while offering immense potential in educational tools, also presents unprecedented risks to teachers’ rights, privacy, and mental health. The rise of AI-generated content, from fake images to deepfake videos, poses new threats that extend beyond traditional forms of bullying or harassment. Teachers now find themselves at the mercy of technologies that can create highly convincing false representations of them, which can spread across the internet in a matter of hours.

The proposed legislation and the growing awareness of AI-driven abuse are important first steps, but they are not nearly enough. Teachers are on the front lines, facing not only the pressure of educating young minds but also the terrifying reality of viral online abuse that can destroy their personal and professional lives in an instant. At the core of this issue is an urgent need to completely rethink teacher rights in the age of AI—and ensure these rights are clearly communicated and fiercely protected within the broader education system.

Safeguards for teachers

As technology races forward, so must the safeguards that protect those who dedicate their lives to teaching. Teachers, already in highly visible roles, are incredibly vulnerable to the kinds of threats that AI, doxing, and deepfakes bring. With just a few clicks, a phone can turn a teacher’s photo into a damaging meme or manipulated image, spreading across social media before the school day even ends. The psychological and emotional toll of this is devastating. Teachers need these psychosocial hazards to be mitigated against, as our workplaces include the ease with which a moment in the classroom can turn into a viral attack. This represents a seismic shift in the professional landscape for educators. 

We need a much larger conversation

While the new doxing legislation is a significant step forward, it is only the beginning of a much larger conversation about teacher rights at work, digital safety, and AI governance. My research highlights the urgent need for trauma-informed methodologies in addressing these issues – not just for students, but also for teachers – as well as the critical role that legislation, such as the Online Safety Act 2021, must play in shaping future protections. As AI continues to reshape our world, the rights and safety of teachers must be prioritized, ensuring that they can carry out their essential work without fear of becoming the next viral victim. This is a challenge we must face head-on, with comprehensive research, policy, and action.

 Janine Arantes is a researcher and educator at Victoria University, with a focus on the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI), digital safety and teacher wellbeing. Janine is the co-lead of the Teachers’ Rights and AI Network, an initiative that brings together educators, researchers, and policymakers to explore the implications of AI on teacher safety and to develop strategies that protect educators from emerging risks in the digital environment. With a background in educational technology, trauma-informed research, and policy advocacy, Janine’s work addresses the psychosocial risks associated with AI and its potential to disrupt traditional teaching environments. Find her on LinkedIn

Is the social media ban a moral panic?

Social media and young people, , ,

South Australia last week began consultations on a proposed social media ban for children under the age of 14. The federal government quickly announced its intention to follow suit with a national social media ban for children (age to be determined) by the end of 2024. This announcement comes hard on the heels of an increased attention to the harms of social media. Specifically, a lot of that attention has been related to reporting of sexism and misogyny in schools. 

In other words, plans to ban social media for children is exactly how an ‘education crisis’ moral panic plays out. 

A perfect storm

Incidents of young men behaving badly in schools getting media attention exists alongside a long debate about whether children can be banned from using social media. The perfect storm of four well-documented types of moral panic (young male deviance, sex and violence, schools and teachers, and the evils of the media) have led to a mediatisation of education that has sustained public anxiety. 

The evidence that the media causes immoral behaviour is fuzzy (though it is stronger in relation to some acts). But that fact is overshadowed by the confident public appeals to common-sense and intuition by people in positions of authority. We saw this debate play out about Dungeons and Dragons during the 1980s Satanic Panic. We also saw it in 1999 after the Columbine school shooting. The two young shooters’ media choices were extensively scrutinised because they were listening to Marilyn Manson and playing shooter video games.

Such mediatisation of an event sustains well-placed public anxiety for longer than it might otherwise have been maintained. When public anxiety is prolonged, policy makers in a democracy are forced to act. The trouble is that journalistic polemics freeze debate and the kind of important dialogue necessary to address the problem. 

As such, policymakers react to a moral panic with poor policy. In the case of the current social media ban proposal, that’s a reactionary authoritarian policy that stagnates what might be otherwise thoughtful localised protocols working to address underlying community problems.

What is a moral panic and why is the social media ban an example of a moral panic? 

The term ‘moral panic’ has been used by social media scholars in response to the proposed bans. But what is a moral panic? A moral panic generally means that the extent and significance of a concern has been exaggerated or overblown. What makes something a moral panic is when a public fear is politically positioned to the point that systems of power begin to respond to it. This means that there is a significant difference between generalised worry about children using social media, and the generalised worry deliberately being used to justify policy.

Being labelled a moral panic does not mean that the foundational morals and values of the nation are safe. Nor does it imply that the reaction is invalid, hysterical, delusional or fantastical (though it might be misused in that way). Labelling something a moral panic is a rhetorical flag that signals an intense and condensed political struggle. Identifying a moral panic helps a political sociologist identify, quite clearly, the lines of power in society. In other words, it helps identify who is influential, who is a political actor worth watching and who are the traditional political actors being ignored. 

Trying to shift the political agenda

“Moral panic’ is a powerful rhetorical device. When a social group, whether academic, political, legal, or journalistic, labels something a moral panic it usually means a power broker is trying to downplay the public anxieties sparking the panic in the first place. It means they are trying to shift the political agenda by signalling to policymakers that the political agenda is not actually responding to a wide public need. Labeling something a moral panic signals that decisions are reactive and being applied at a surface level, without deep thought about the actual cause of the anxiety in the first place. 

At the end of the day, if a social media ban is democratically popular, no amount of thoughtful, expert advice will have any effect. Ironically, the tools that social media researchers are experts in are the same tools that have shifted how politics works, anxieties are spread, and policies are made in Australia. Experts have to acknowledge this shift in how democratic nations now make laws, and advise policy makers within that reality (at least until the technology companies are better regulated).

What do schools have to do with the social media ban?

Schools may welcome this ban because it means that they can use the law to make policies to limit student social media use beyond ineffective mobile phone bans that do not acknowledge students can still access social media sites on their BYOD devices, or even the school-provided devices via a proxy. 

But all the bans in the world will not address the fundamental social issues that create problematic classroom and schoolyard behaviours in the first place. It is not social media that leads young men to distribute ranking lists of their female classmates, nor was it AI that caused them to place the heads of classmates and teachers on naked bodies, nor is it the algorithm that causes them to call their female teachers and classmates foul names. All these tools do is make it easier but even if the tools are banned, misogyny will find another way. 

So the real issue is the lack of time and space that schools have to engage in difficult conversations about how to act in society. We have seen scholarship after scholarship after scholarship about the curriculum crunch and the time poverty of teachers and school leaders. We have seen debate after debate about how to fit more into the curriculum, and very little about finding the time to have conversations about democratic values like equity, inclusion and diversity. Time that is necessary to process big feelings as children come to understand their world. 

Students need time to process ideas

Often this world holds no resemblance to what they thought the world would look like because important skills like critical and media literacy have shattered their world view. It is quite natural for an adult, let alone a teen, to lash out when their worldview is challenged. Teaching of these skills needs time to allow students to process the ideas but schools are so time poor that often critical skills are shoehorned in because a teacher thinks they are important. The reality is that critical skills are not something that can take one lesson. They develop over time, even years. 

The concerns of parents, teachers and school leaders about sexism and violence happening in their own communities has been heard by politicians but because moral panic mechanisms have been deployed through the mediatisation of schools, young men, sex and violence, the political solution is poor and will not address the real issue. Schools and their communities need time to come up with a localised plan. This might include banning social media, but that cannot be something the federal government decides.

Naomi Barnes

Naomi Barnes is an associate professor at QUT. She has a specific focus on moral panics and has demonstrated how online communication influences education politics in Australia, the US and the UK. She has analysed and developed network models to show the effect of moral panics on the Australian curriculum. Naomi lectures future teachers in Modern History, Civics and Citizenship and Writing Studies.