Educators and parents often complain about toddlers and teenagers. In the first article of this two-part series, we explained similarities in their physical, social and emotional development. In this second article, we explore the cognitive similarities, share tips on building positive relationships, and provide ways to address their mental health and wellbeing.
What are the similarities?
Cognitive
Both age groups are still learning how to assess risk, yet they think they are invincible. This, combined with the rapid physical development, can lead to high rates of hospital emergency department admissions.
Additionally, teenage hormone surges interrupt concentration, which is frustrating for educators and parents as they sometimes think messages are not going through. Teenagers are often off task and can spend considerable amounts of time day dreaming.
Communication can also be a struggle. While toddlers might struggle to find the right words to say (even if they understand the words), teenagers might find it challenging to express what they really feel. This can lead to grunting, then either tantrums (toddlers), or slammed doors, rolled eyes and sighs (teenagers). There is often a lot of dissatisfied whining and grumbling. Often children just cannot name the emotions they are feeling so they fall back onto the perennial grunt of “nothing” despite clear evidence that they are feeling something. It is useful to use descriptive language, labelling the feelings their behaviour indicates. For younger children, reading books that improve emotional literacy can help. Many of these are available in libraries.
Tips for positive relationships
It is important to maintain a positive relationship with both age groups despite the challenges.
Remembering that it is a frustrating age for children as well as educators and parents. They are not trying to be painful, rather, they are trying to grow up and learn about who they are and how the world works. When they are grumpy, teaching them to be civil is important.
Using humour can make a world of difference when they are sullen, sulky or recalcitrant. Letting them know their efforts are appreciated (whether they succeed or not), and that you understand that life is frustrating at times.
It is important they know they belong, they are important, they are a valued part of the family or learning environment, not a burden and that you appreciate them being here. It can help to identify what you see as their strengths, particularly at times when they are overwhelmed by frustration at what they see as their failures. Using a strengths-based approach and listening to them can make a big difference to the outcomes.
Boundaries
Both age groups will push against and even throw tantrums about any boundaries you put in place. For a toddler, a boundary might be that they can only play with the blocks when they have helped pack up the train set. For a teenager, it might mean they need to finish their work before they can do something fun, or their behaviour needs to be at a certain level before they can be trusted to go on an excursion.
It is their job to push boundaries and tell you the rules are not fair. It is your job to clearly set limits and stick to them, reinforcing consequences and gradually easing the limits as they mature and show their ability to follow them, and self-regulate. Those without boundaries feel lost and uncared for, so they try riskier activities and poorer behaviour to get attention.
Friends
It is not an educator or parent’s job to be friends with a child or teenager. They have their own friends. There will be moments of friendship, and these are wonderful, and likely to increase as the child matures. However, it is the adult’s job to be a coach and mentor. Their friends are not coaches, so you need to take on that role.
Opinions
Teenagers are learning how to express their opinions and they need support to know how to do this appropriately. This means learning how to:
calmly state their opinion,
spot the difference between opinion and fact,
value a range of opinions,
agree to disagree respectfully, and
appreciate that you approve of those with different opinions than your own.
Mental health
Not every child, despite all your best efforts, is going to be able to grow up without help being
provided to the family and to those carrying the responsibility for their welfare. There are a range of family support services available upon which families can call. Educators can recommend the mental health resources available at the service, school or community.
Mental health challenges, particularly in the teenage years, are not uncommon and there are a range of supports available (see Teens mental health: services and links and Teenage mental health – treatments and causes. However, understanding the similarities in these age groups and looking after yourself can support educators’ and parents’ efforts and reduce their stress levels.
Marg Rogers is a senior lecturer in early childhood education. She researches marginalised voices within families and education especially in regional, rural and remote communities. Marg is a postdoctoral fellow within the Commonwealth Funded Manna Institute.
Margaret Sims is a professor in early childhood education and care and has worked in the areas of family support and disabilities for many years. She researches in the areas of professionalism in early childhood and higher education, families, disabilities, social justice and families from CaLD backgrounds. She is an honorary professor at Macquarie University.
Among educators and parents, the most often complained about age groups are toddlers and teens. Physically, socially, emotionally and cognitively there are many similarities in these developmental ages. Understanding these similarities can reduce frustrations and help us better connect with them.
In this two-part series, we explore the physical, social and emotional similarities. In the second article (published tomorrow), we will explore the cognitive similarities, share tips on building positive relationships, and provide ways to address their mental health and wellbeing.
What are the similarities?
Physical
This is a time of rapid physical growth for both age groups. Brains are struggling to keep up, causing what might seem like clumsiness and frequent accidents as they learn how to move and be in their rapidly changing bodies. They might not know their own strength and accidently break something or hurt someone as they test shifting limits. It is important to avoid overreacting and attaching a purpose behind these actions as there may be none. Letting them know you are upset and that you do not want them doing that again is okay, but try to leave it there.
This rapid growth means both toddlers and teenagers need loads of sleep. This can be tricky for teenagers who like to stay up late, then struggle with morning routines and learning activities. Additionally, gaming, streaming and social media means there is more to occupy them in the evenings. Parents are often unpopular if they take devices off children at bedtime, but it might mean a big difference enabling them to get the physical rest they need.
Emotional
Both ages are times of opposites. One minute children seem to be clingy and wanting attention and support, then the next they are pushing you away, expressing their opinions, and saying ‘No! I can do it’, snarling or grunting. They are still very needy at all times, despite the bravado.
Learning to step back and allowing them some freedom is important, but letting them know you are there whenever they need you is vital. The saying ‘Children need your love when they least deserve it’ is very true. Teach them that if they want to do something themselves, or have time to themselves that it is okay, but that they need to express this wish in a way that is not hurtful. Providing example sentences can help them choose appropriate words.
Social
Socially, children are still learning what is acceptable, what will elicit a response, and how to navigate relationships. Emotionally, they are more likely to find rejection heartbreaking because they are forging their identity. Feeling rejected for toddlers might look like someone not sharing their toys, or pushing them over. For teens it is far more complex, and involves feeling liked and belonging within friendship or sub cultural groups.
To be mentally healthy all humans need to feel a sense of belonging. We need an identity that locates us safely in groups of others. For toddlers those groups include the family and possibly the educators and peer group in their early childhood setting. For teenagers the importance of the family group declines (but doesn’t disappear) as they seek their place in a range of different peer groups in both the face-to-face and virtual worlds they inhabit. Learning who we are in these groups is often a function of how the group reacts to us, and children need a secure base of caring relationships. This supports them to manage the turbulent emotions that come with learning that not everyone in the world will like them or want to be with them.
Regarding identity
In regards to identity, toddlers are realising they are separate to their primary caregiver, and teenagers are forging their identity as a young person separate from their parents. At both ages, egos are very fragile, so it is important parents provide a place where they can feel safe and secure within their own home, away from the hurdy gurdy of friendships. Ideally, the family environment creates a safe basis from which children can reach out into the world and develop their own identities within their own groups. If there is not a safe environment at home, other spaces might help provide some support, such as libraries, extra-curricular groups and clubs.
Teenagers are now old enough to realise what people say and what they mean can be different. This new skill means they often believe people are thinking the worst of them, despite the reality that people are not thinking about them at all. It is important to point out to teenagers that it is a time where they are more likely to be self-conscious, but the reality is most people are not thinking about anything but themselves or the task at hand.
For both age groups, having time alone at home is important as this time gives them the space to process their experiences and reinforce for themselves just who they are. For teens, this means times where they are not on social media. They might complain, but it is good for them to relax and not always be socially available. Time in the family unit is also important as it reinforces the relationships that make home a safe place.
Looking after yourself
Overall, it is challenging educating and parenting these age groups, so finding another trusted and experienced educator or parent to chat to is vital for your own wellbeing. It is normal for educators and parents of toddlers and teenagers to feel exhausted, challenged and exasperated at times. It is essential to recognise your own limits. It is not selfish to desire time alone to recharge batteries to enable you to cope with the next challenge thrown your way. Nor is it selfish to reach out for help when those difficulties feel overwhelming. Looking after yourself is vital for the long haul.
Marg Rogers is a senior lecturer in early childhood education. She researches marginalised voices within families and education especially in regional, rural and remote communities. Marg is a postdoctoral fellow within the Commonwealth Funded Manna Institute.
Margaret Sims is a professor in early childhood education and care and has worked in the areas of family support and disabilities for many years. She researches in the areas of professionalism in early childhood and higher education, families, disabilities, social justice and families from CaLD backgrounds. She is an honorary professor at Macquarie University.
Australian public universities have undergone extensive policy reforms since the 1980s, driven by neoliberal ideologies that emphasise free markets, competition, efficiency, and reduced state intervention. These reforms have redefined universities’ identity as corporatised organisations with commercial agendas, prioritising revenue generation over knowledge generation (Parker et al., 2023). Traditional values of inclusivity, social cohesion, and social mobility have been challenged, with excellence redefined in terms of research output, innovative teaching approaches, world rankings, business partnerships, and attracting fee-paying students.
The impact was felt when the COVID-19 pandemic exposed these risks to public universities, as they experienced a drop in international student enrollments and funding challenges. Staffing was significantly affected, with limited government support (Guthrie et al., 2022). This has prompted questions about the future strategies of university managements. We highlight the vulnerability of Australian universities to crises and emphasise the need for reimagining them as democratic and purposeful institutions (Martin-Sardesai et al., 2021). We call for a reevaluation of the relationship between a university’s mission, its stakeholders, and those responsible for its administration, emphasising the importance of public consultation and engagement in shaping the future of higher education (Guthrie et al., 2022).
A shift in culture
Governments around the world have implemented policies aligned with New Public Management (NPM) in public service delivery, such as privatisation, contracting out, selling public assets, and reducing income taxes. They argue that these policies align with market principles and improve efficiency. This has led to a shift in university culture towards accounting, economising, and marketisation, prioritising skills over theoretical knowledge. NPM has also influenced the organisational structure of universities, with corporate practices and entities being favored.
In Australia, public universities have adopted a user-pays philosophy, market-driven pricing, and cost minimisation. The Australian higher education system (AHES) follows a centralised policy, with public universities receiving funding from the Federal Government. The Minister of Education and Training regulates the number of universities and controls the number of students in each undergraduate course. Local students pay a higher education contribution fee, while universities can set fees for international students. International student fees play a crucial role in the funding strategy of Australian public universities, subsidising operations, teaching, and research expenses.
Financial gains over resilience
Funding for higher education as a percentage of GDP has been declining, and the government grants only a portion of the sector’s total expenditures. Despite financial challenges, the number of students studying in Australia has been increasing, particularly international students from countries like China and India. Australia has a high proportion of international students compared to other countries. The management of Australian public universities has focused on short-term profit optimisation, prioritising financial gains over long-term adaptability and resilience. This has left the sector vulnerable to external shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and strained relations with China. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on Australia’s higher education system (AHES). The government implemented border closures and universities transitioned to online teaching, leading to the postponement or cancellation of campus events. The Federal Government did not provide additional financial support to universities during the pandemic.
The literature suggests that universities have willingly embraced the commodification of education and the adoption of accounting practices to align with government policies and VC’s business ambitions (Martin-Sardesai et al., 2017; Martin-Sardesai, 2016). The proliferation of quantified metrics has become an end in itself, overshadowing broader societal values and objectives (Martin-Sardesai et al., 2021). Overall, numbers and quantified metrics have become influential in shaping university processes and outcomes, emphasising commercialisation and performance over broader societal goals. In investigating the mechanisms behind this shift, identify that Australian public universities have undergone extensive policy reforms since the 1980s, driven by neoliberal ideologies that emphasise free markets, competition, efficiency, and reduced state intervention.
The emphasis is on the numbers
These reforms aim to transform universities into autonomous and entrepreneurial knowledge organisations, aligning them with the global knowledge economy. The implementation of these policies is supported by accountingisation, which emphasises performance measures and accountability.
These reforms have led to the privatisation, marketisation, and internationalisation of universities, following the principles of neoliberal economics. Traditional values of inclusivity, social cohesion, and social mobility have been challenged, with excellence redefined in terms of research output, innovative teaching approaches, world rankings, business partnerships, and attracting fee-paying students. The neoliberal agenda prioritises skills, applied knowledge, and productivity, dismissing humanistic, critical, and theoretical knowledge as irrelevant. Universities are seen as tools for training productive workers to support the knowledge economy and generate research impacts.
Traditional values challenged
While universities are public institutions, they are increasingly required to adopt accounting practices and performance measures, influenced by New Public Management (NPM) principles. NPM has shifted power relations within universities and introduced numerical forms of power, leading to changes in academics’ practices and thinking. However, these reforms pose risks to the higher education sector, potentially eroding its critical voice, legitimacy, and transparency. The focus on improvement, efficiency, and standards needs to be balanced with a language of education rooted in ethics, moral obligations, and values. Overall, the reforms in Australian public universities reflect a larger global trend towards corporatisation and commercialisation, impacting the core values and purpose of higher education (Parker et al., 2023).
We are a warning to others
Our research has examined the changes in the higher education system of a country over four decades, focusing on its commercialisation and internationalisation. It discussed the influence of neoliberal philosophies and New Public Management (NPM) practices on universities. We identify the central role of accountingisation and marketisation in this transformation, suggesting it has occurred gradually and covertly. Governments have implemented policies to position higher education as a source of intellectual property and skills to enhance global competitiveness. We highlight the impact of external pressures on universities, including government regulations, professional norms, and market mechanisms. Universities have redefined their identity as corporatised organisations with commercial agendas, prioritising revenue generation over knowledge generation.
While acknowledging the risk associated with the commercialisation of universities, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we criticise the reliance on international student revenues and call for a reconsideration of university strategies and government support. The Australian case serves as a warning for other countries facing similar challenges. We also suggest the need for a shift away from performance-based metrics and a focus on ethics, values, and societal impact in education. We raise questions about alternative strategies, the role of stakeholders, and the responsibility for university reform. Ultimately, we call for a reevaluation of the relationship between a university’s mission, its stakeholders, and those responsible for its administration, emphasising the importance of public consultation and engagement in shaping the future of higher education.
Ann Sardesai has recently taken up the position of an associate professor of accounting at Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Lee D. Parker is a research professor in accounting, the University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK. James Guthrie, AM, FCPA, is an emeritus professor in the Accounting and Corporate Governance Department at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
At every university around the country, academics in schools and faculties of Education have been hit hard. Hundreds, maybe thousands, have lost their jobs. Many of them are people we know. Yet it is not easy to identify the particular staff who have ‘disappeared’ from classes, courses and schools of Education among the seventeen and a half thousand other university staff who lost jobs around Australia during the initial COVID response alone. These losses continue: we read about them daily. And higher education job losses affect far more than individuals and their personal aspirations. They also affect their families, their health, their mortgages, and the families and welfare of the communities in which they live, work and shop. The fall-out is being felt everywhere, although it is most obvious in those regional cities highly dependent on the local university for their economic prosperity.
But what we are failing to notice is that these effects are particularly important in our Education faculties, at a time when states are facing a looming teacher shortage and the Federal Minister for Education and Youth is reviewing the capacity of our universities to attract high-quality candidates into teaching and to supply highly effective teachers. If education is crucial to nation-building, there could not be a greater need for high-quality graduates to staff schools around the country.
But the academics who have survived in our schools of Education, either scraping a career together as short-term casuals, or scrabbling to remain as full-timers, are doing it tough.
The climate of anxiety and insecurity in which these people (our neighbours, relatives, friends, clients and colleagues) are living is reminiscent of accounts of totalitarian regimes. In every capital city and university town around Australia, people are living in fear – afraid to say no when they are asked to do things that do not sit well on their consciences; afraid not to agree with the rationalisation to course content and assessment review needed to cope with increased workload; afraid to admit that they haven’t had time to properly read and consider the implications of the policy changes they are being asked to approve in governance committees. Heads down, they are keeping under the radar as much as they can in order to survive. They are not proud of what they are doing at work, and they know the quality of what students are being offered is suffering too. Headlines this week such as Murdoch Uni gags staff as students disillusioned over education quality are beginning to reflect one reason why departing staff are often silenced by the non-disclosure clauses in their redundancy agreements.
She fears for her career if she names this place. In another university, a key professional staff member, whose knowledge and expertise in supporting the faculty’s upcoming course accreditation renewal are literally irreplaceable in the short term, has chosen to move on because he can no longer live with the moral disappointments of his daily work. He needs to keep referees on side. And in a third institution another casual staff member, studying for the PhD that may now, ironically, lessen her chances of future employment, has been given three new subjects to teach with less than a fortnight’s notice. Only one of these subjects is in her area of expertise. She knows she hasn’t got time to read the material she will be teaching, but she needs the work. She will do her best, based on years of classroom teaching experience. While she knows it isn’t, her generalist knowledge is deemed adequate to teach the specialist knowledge that the Course Team, the Academic Board, AITSL, the profession, and Education Minister Tudge all see as necessary for her students to meet Australia’s Graduate Teacher standards. A staffer at QUT, ‘safe’ for the moment, describes effects that are also experienced by peers in other places: “Everything that gets done is being pushed back to academic staff – everything. Academics who are not experts in professional tasks are doing professional tasks, which takes incredible amounts of time. There is a training video or a pdf training note for everything – and you get sent hyperlinks for these if you ask for help”. The loss of professional staff, or their relocation to central service areas, also affects the quality of what can be done across the board. For Education, this is not good enough.
A long-term casual staff-member at one NSW university has been told that she is no longer being offered teaching or marking work because she has a PhD, and “people without doctoral qualifications are cheaper”.
Schools and faculties of Education have been particularly hard-hit by longer-term structural change and stringency in universities, beginning before COVID. More recent reports of stress, overwork, anxiety are not limited to Education staff of course, highlighting the bleak picture across institutions. Staff who are still employed must pick up the work of lost colleagues, and they are increasingly worried about what they are offering their students. This is a sector in crisis. A WHS survey conducted earlier this year at the University of Wollongong indicated that, there, 90% of respondents believe there are not enough staff to get the work done, and 66% have considered leaving because of workplace stress (NTEU 2021p. 3). And alongside the serious problem of human and workforce costs, there is a pressing long-term issue for the nation in terms of the quality of what faculties of Education can offer their students ‘on the cheap’.
It is obvious that the people who are being made ‘redundant’, or who are ‘separating’ from the institutions where they work are workers – the people who get things done. They are not the managers, the highly paid senior executive staff, outside of Faculties, who direct and should govern what goes on. Mostly it is more senior academics – the more experienced workers – who are targeted for redundancy, because they are by definition not at the lowest pay rate.
In some institutions, such as the University of New South Wales, Canberra, QUT, and UniSA, the impact of staff losses is not visible in current numbers. At UNSW, four senior Education staff took Voluntary Redundancies at the end of 2020, but as a staff member there says, these are being replaced by three new appointments this term. Staff at UniSA say the situation is similar there. At UNSW, there are still hidden impacts – the increase in workload due to online and dual mode delivery, an increase in class sizes and what colleagues see as the exploitation of casual academics who are pressured by students to spend more time working with them online – and are afraid to refuse. At Macquarie, while education staff are hopeful that after losing six staff in 2020, they should avoid further redundancies in 2021 because they have made “sufficient internal savings”, yet staff cuts within the faculty will again be considered at the beginning of 2022.
Other places are already in real trouble. At the University of Newcastle, which has earned a strong reputation for its educational research in NSW, staff say their numbers in 2020 were already down more than 10 in recent years, and they will have lost at least another 10 FTE staff members by the end of this year. Unlike other areas of that university, it seems, these education positions do not seem to merit replacement.
Similarly, staff at the University of Melbourne report the loss of at least 13 FTE academic staff who have left Education, either taking redundancy packages or losing fixed-term contracts – half of these positions were at senior levels. While this has also been effective as a cost-saving strategy for the University, staff who are left report that they now find it hard to contract sessional staff, who are getting much more secure and rewarding work as casual teachers in schools (and who are being targeted by some state departments as potential ‘career-changers’ for more permanent roles). Staff at Griffith University say they had around 55 full time academics in 2020, but this is down to around 44. And at UTS, over recent years, education has been steadily decreasing in size. What was a Faculty of Education was reduced to a School of Education, and then most recently to a merged School of International Studies and Education. As one staff member reports, “We started to feel more and more invisible, despite being told by the University leadership that commitment to Education was a part of the University’s social justice mission”.
But they don’t have relationships with experienced professional staff, and they often don’t know the reasons why they need to adhere to policies. They don’t know who to talk to when they need to understand something to give good advice to a student; and they can’t see why they should not ‘improve’ the assessment task that has been carefully designed by a course team and approved by an Academic Board.
When experienced people disappear, so does the corporate knowledge that oils the gears of any institution, and is essential for it to run smoothly and efficiently. When they are replaced, it is almost always now by new ‘teaching-only’ staff who are doing the very best they can.
In some cases, the disappearing staff are also taking the higher-level disciplinary expertise that the faculty relies on to meet TEQSA’s HE standards for staff qualifications. As a staff member at one institution says regretfully: “It is now even more possible that a student undertaking their Master of Teaching course at this university may get through their whole degree and have only been taught by sessional teaching staff. This is in a faculty that is supposed to be ranked 1 or 2 in Australia for Education!”
Worse, universities are disguising this information in their reports to government. James Guthrie and Brendan O’Connell’s analysis of data from the Department of Education, Skills and Employment shows that changes have been made by universities in how they are accounting for their employees in 2020. This means that official government reports can not be reconciled with the numbers for staffing presented in the same universities’ 2020 annual reports. In his account of the obfuscation of numbers currently reported at the University of Wollongong, Guthrie has also pointed to the unacceptable variation of reported figures to the public and government of staff losses – estimating that this accounts for up to 500 positions in this university alone.
And even worse still, at a time when the Morrison government has indicated that Australia’s 39 comprehensive universities may not be offering Australia an “optimal model for the quality of teaching or research”, the scene is being set for a possible return to a binary system in higher education. After the 2019 Coaldrake Report’s insistence that (real) universities should be involved in both research and teaching, these impacts on the quality of teaching in Education schools are indeed alarming. Regulations that institutions are required to meet in the HES are simply not being met. While some universities clearly consider that this can be disguised for a short time, the academic risks are enormous, and some universities are clearly making no effort to sustain the quality of their Education faculties.
This is particularly noticeable in relation to the Coaldrake requirements for universities to be producing high-quality, world standard research in the disciplines they wish to teach – and it is now a matter of urgency for Education faculties around the country. A recent report into the critical need for addressing research with education faculties cites Coaldrake to argue that these events are not just bad luck or bad timing for Education. The university ideal of retaining both teaching and research in one academic position is fundamental to the teaching-research nexus in academic work. It seems “more than a minor oversight that the move to increase teaching-only positions in many universities also prevents them from doing research” (pp.52-53).
But while teaching is suffering, research is in dire straits.
In many institutions, even those that have not yet had academic job losses, staff report that this is happening. At UTS, at Flinders, at QUT, “People are stretched, and time for research for most is limited. Some struggle to find time even for service or HDR supervision because they are doing so much teaching and have so many students to mark for.”
As the AARE national survey of staff in Education schools and faculties has found, education research is becoming a luxury. Their data shows that “education research is now not only being subsidized by significant amounts of unpaid labour but also the direct financial contributions of individual academics trying to keep their main form of research development available” (Brennan et al., 2020, p. 36). One academic in one of the few Faculties of Education left in Australia speaks of how her research profile is only being sustained by “the generosity of colleagues in other institutions”, as her teaching workload allows no time to contribute to the writing up of their research.
The example of the decline of Education at UTS shows the inevitable result of these circumstances. As staffing cuts led to the structural changes noted above, staff tell how in the new Faculty they were presented with data about the ‘viability’ of Education as a discipline. It is not surprising that fewer staff produce less research income and fewer high impact publications. As one staff member says: “We’d lost so many of our Level D and E academics over time, and Level Cs were expected to demonstrate research leadership beyond their experience.
It is clear that both education research and teaching are under threat in our universities as well as in our university system. Education is the key to any sort of future for Australia, and while every state appears to be facing imminent teacher shortages, the complicity of universities in allowing the quality of education research and teaching, at the present time, is a serious concern that should be worrying TEQSA as well as our politicians.
Jo-Anne Reid is Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Arts and Education at Charles Sturt University. She has collaborated on a range of national competitive grants over her career, focussing on primary/secondary literacy and English teaching, teacher education, minority-group and Indigenous teachers, literacy and the environment, and rural teacher education.
