Under NESA’s draft drama syllabus, which created outrage among drama teachers, students and parents this week, HSC group drama performance had been downgraded (NESA backflipped on this), options for students cut and the link between Year 7-10 drama and the HSC had been broken, and written exams increased.
NESA failed to listen to academics and teachers on the drama syllabus and now NESA is failing to listen on the music syllabus. I know this because I was an advisor on drama.
Is NESA broken?
They need to start again. Release a new draft for drama, provide adequate consultation, and this time, listen to voices outside their organisation. Same for music. If we let the rot in NESA continue, the ultimate losers will be our students who will be denied learning that is world leading. Surely that is more important than NESA’s pride.
Syllabus revisions for drama and music are normally sedate affairs. Academics, teachers and NESA officers work collaboratively to generate a syllabus that will create rigorous and engaging learning for students.
Not in 2024. Last week more than 350 drama teachers met at the Seymour Centre to ask Paul Martin CEO of NESA about the complete inadequacy of this draft drama syllabus.
On the same day, an emergency session of an upper house committee was convened to find out what the fuss is all about. To be fair, NESA had a perfectly good draft drama syllabus that had been constructed in the way we expect but sometime between that draft and its subsequent release the syllabus became unworkable and unteachable.
Heather Mitchell and Tim Minchin speak out
Renowned performing artists Heather Mitchell and Tim Minchin raised their voices in protest, the shift was so breathaking. Education academics and former supervisors of marking wrote letters to Prue Car asking for a restart. Most have been unanswered.
Even with all this pressure, NESA is stonewalling attempts to admit it has not got this right. They insist their process is unimpeachable.
Music also has major concerns. Calls for a new start on the HSC music syllabus have also been ignored. To me, this looks like bureaucratic arrogance.
To whom does the syllabus belong?
In the face of overwhelming advice from teachers, students, academics and the community, NESA are insisting that it is right. CEO of NESA Paul Martin went as far as to say to a room full of teachers: “It’s not your syllabus.”
Of course he is right. This syllabus does not belong to teachers and academics.
It also does not belong to NESA.
It belongs to our young people who have the right to a world-class, engaging, rigorous and transformative syllabus.
What NESA has produced so far is not a shadow of that in either music or drama.
My fear is that a narrow ideologically driven approach to learning and assessment has taken hold that does not understand nor provides space for the richness creative arts learning offers our young people.
NESA can fix this. They need to start again.
Professor Michael Anderson is Co-Director of the CREATE Centre and Professor of Creativity and Arts Education in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work at The University of Sydney.
Why did over 100 high school students apply to the Future Teachers’ Club (FTC)? The answer lies in the connections they’ve experienced with their own teachers.
What is FTC? The Future Teachers Club is a school-based initiative run by teachers for public secondary students interested in pursuing a career in teaching and engages its participants in behind-the-scenes activities to understand the scope and depth of the teaching profession.lThe Future Teachers Club (FTC) has been running at Macquarie Fields High School for over a decade under the guidance of visionary senior HSIE teacher Perry Celestino, and dedicated MFHS former school principal Jan Dolstra.
The conference, held at the Chau Chak Wing Museum on Wednesday this week, saw students come from western and south western Sydney, Dubbo, Armidale and Mussellbrook in regional New South Wales to explore teaching as a profession.
Where does teaching lead?
They wanted to see where teaching would lead them. They’d already been inspired by their own teachers and now they had the opportunity to explore how teaching creates opportunities to form relationships and make a difference. It offered these prospective teachers a unique combination of inspiration, storytelling, and practical insights into the joys and challenges of a teaching career.
The conference, a collaboration between the University of Sydney’s Sydney School of Education and Social Work and the NSW Department of Education, created a space to delve into the essence of teaching – a profession built on connection, relationships, and the profound impact of shared stories.
From the opening remarks by Professor Mark Scott, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Sydney, to the workshops facilitated by expert educators, the event celebrated the intrinsic rewards of teaching. Professor Scott also acknowledged the daunting prospect of a four-year education degree but reframed it as an opportunity to develop new skills and forge a meaningful career.
The power of storytelling
At the heart of the conference was the power of storytelling. Dr Alison Grove O’Grady, Senior Lecturer and Chair of Initial Teacher Education, delivered a session on the classroom as a place for joy, connection, and shared talents. Drawing on her own experiences, Alison shared photos to illustrate her journey in teaching: one of which was from 1992, depicting her first Year 11 Drama class at Whalan High School in Mount Druitt.
The photo from Whalan High was a testament to the enduring relationships that define a teaching career. Alison spoke about the five students in the photo, recounting how their stories had shaped her life in education. In a touching moment, the niece of one of those students from the photo, who was present at The Future Teachers Conference approached Alison after the session to say, “That’s my aunt in that photo.” This deeply personal connection underscored the conference’s key theme: teaching is built on relationships. See photo. Yes permission given
Situated within the Chau Chak Wing Museum, the conference embraced the interdisciplinary nature of education, grounding the day in Aboriginal and First Nations histories and storytelling. The museum’s rich collection of Aboriginal artefacts and materials provided a meaningful context for exploring teaching as a way to preserve and share knowledge.
Forging connections
Speakers like Zoe Cassim, Program Manager for the Indigenous Literacy Foundation, and Kylie Captain, President of the Aboriginal Studies Association, highlighted the importance of Aboriginal ways of knowing and storytelling in education. Their contributions reinforced the idea that teaching is about forging connections—not only between teacher and student but also between past, present, and future.
For experienced educators like Alison Grove O’Grady and Dr Catherine Smyth, Program Director for the Bachelor of Education (Primary), the conference was a chance to give back to a profession that has brought them long and joyful careers. “As we move toward the end of our careers, it’s important to share our stories and the enormous joys and experiences we’ve had,” Alison reflected.
What the students said
One student remarked in a post-conference survey:
“Teaching creates new possibilities, the career benefits your skills and allows you to make valuable connections to school and staff.”
Another shared:
“I used to believe teaching was draining, but today I learnt that the reward was more important.”
These reflections highlight a key takeaway from the event: teaching is not just a career but a calling. It’s about sharing stories, building relationships, and creating a sense of community – values that resonated deeply with attendees.
The conference wasn’t just about the attendees’ futures – it was about shaping the future of education itself. Murat Dizdar, Secretary of the NSW Department of Education, told students, “Teaching is the profession that creates all other professions,” and even shared his personal email, inviting them to contact him directly for job opportunities. His gesture underscored the importance of nurturing a new generation of teachers.
Students left the conference inspired, with one remarking: “This gave me an insight into behind-the-scenes of teaching.”
One message was clear
By the end of the day, one message was clear: education is a cornerstone of community and connection. As Alison summed up, “Teaching is about relationships, sharing our own stories, and creating moments.” Held in the inspiring setting of the Chau Chak Wing Museum, surrounded by ancestors and grounded in First Nations histories, the conference embodied this vision of teaching as a dynamic and deeply rewarding profession.
For those who attended, the Future Teachers Conference was an invitation to step into a career that shapes lives and creates possibilities, one relationship at a time.
Left to right: Alison Grove O’Grady is Chair of Initial Teacher Education and Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney, School of Education and Social Work. Her research focuses on pedagogies of empathy, as performed and action-oriented methods, to develop teachers’ understanding of self, multiple identities and voices.
Kate Smyth is Program Director (B.Ed. Primary) in the School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. Kate works extensively with initial teachers, alumni and other educators in supporting primary teacher professional learning collaborations in rural, remote and urban schools in NSW, and she has been co-leader of professional learning experiences in Vietnam and Indonesia.
Thomas De Angelis is the Research Associate – Strategic Projects at the CREATE Centre, a research centre based at the University of Sydney that investigates the impact of the arts on education, health and wellbeing. Thomas also works as a lecturer and tutor and is currently completing a PhD and Academic Fellowship with the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.
The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) curriculum review puts music courses at risk, not just in NSW, but across Australia. NSW has twice the number of students taking music than any other state. That makes it a leader.
The proposed changes fall short of research, best practice, and teacher expectations. This is despite NESA’s claims of strengthening post-school pathways and fostering lifelong learning, .
Worst of all, the “revamped” Music 1 course—the country’s most popular Year 12 offering — severs meaningful ties to further study or the music industry.
The back story
NSW has historically enjoyed the leading music curriculum in the country, when measured by innovations and research internationally.NSW modernised its senior music syllabuses in the 1980s and embraced integrated learning: students performed, composed improvised alongside traditional literacy and aural skills. This inclusive approach reflects real-world diversity and career pathways. It was strengthened in the 90s and in 2000 by a focus on multiculturalism, contemporary Australian music, and student specialisation.
“Music 1” is by far the most popular course. It’s a music-for-everyone course. You don’t need to have studied an instrument privately for years to take Music 1. You can be a Chopin-loving pianist, a shredding guitar soloist, or an Electronic Dance Music producer. You can study any music of the last 1,000 years. You can elect to specialise in performing, composing, or musicology. Or you can balance each of those learning experiences.
Envy of the nation
This broad choice has made us the envy of the nation. Dr Emily Wilson, senior lecturer in Music Education at the University of Melbourne, usually speaks jealously when she talks about our courses, because she says that at around 7% of the total HSC candidature, it’s twice the rate of student engagement compared to Victoria and Queensland.
“Music 2”, in its own words, “focuses on the study of Western art music”. Even this more traditional course was really cutting-edge for its time. It insisted all students learn to compose, even if their specialisation was in performance. And in the HSC year , it focuses on contemporary Australian Music rather than classical or romantic repertoire. Music Extension can only be taken by Music 2 students, with a Western art music focus. It has allowed these students to do a further specialisation in one area of their choice.
These courses were far from perfect. They feature outdated elements like requiring song submissions via written scores. Also, the obsolete “Concepts of Music” highlighted the need for more authentic approaches to music theory and literacy. Pedagogical breakthroughs in other countries would benefit NSW. These include the extensive research and practice in informal learning, and culturally responsive pedagogy.
The problem at NESA
Concerns about NESA’s reform began early. Educators experienced disappointment with the new K-6 and 7-10 syllabuses. They regressed from evidence-based integrated approaches and added rigid content. The opaque process was marked by non-disclosure agreements and vague public feedback summaries. By NESA’s own admission, it left educators guessing how their input shaped the final drafts.
The NSW syllabuses since the 1990s had been based on Swanwick and Tillman’s 1986 Curriculum Spiral model . NSW used to pride itself on a continuum from year 7 to year 12, with skills built on at each stage of learning. The proposed changes erase the continuity in the senior curriculum, performing, listening, and composing in years 7-10.
NESA relies on a workforce with varied professional backgrounds – rather than subject experts with deep teaching experience. That leads to poor decisions and leaves specialists grappling with flawed syllabuses. Meaningful consultation—such as face-to-face sessions across the state, not just online updates—would boost teacher morale. That’s particularly true in rural areas, where the process currently feels like a steamroller, pushing ahead despite clear deficiencies.
NESA’s shortcomings in understanding music education have been replicated in the recent release of an equally poorly researched and written drama course. All of the evidence (in the syllabuses themselves) suggests this is because of NESA’s intransigent position toward making the Arts subjects fit into the same template and nomenclature as the more “important” subjects such as maths, English, and science.
Attacks on Music 1 – Time Travelling, backwards
Music 1 has been the leading music course in the country because of its breadth of choice and inclusion. The draft syllabus destroys the diversity and inclusivity of the existing course, while at the same time making it weaker against its own evidence base.
Gone are the wide range of topics that can be studied, and in their place a restrictive list of mandatory “Focus Areas”. While many have incorrectly thought of Music 1 as “the pop course”, it actually served as a conduit for many classically-trained musicians in public schools that could not afford to run both courses. Sadly, that is most of them. Under the new mandatory list, this is impossible. Now songwriters, DJs, producers, and other contemporary musicians will be forced to study topics of little interest to them or relevance to their future careers. It is an aggressive narrowing of the curriculum which experts believe will lead to widespread disengagement from the course. Prescribed topics were part of the early music syllabuses for the 1950s Leaving Certificate, carried over to the first HSC music syllabuses, then relinquished in the 1980s in line with leading research and practice.
The proposed examination includes the introduction of a two-hour aural exam with increased weighting. The composition and musicology electives are being binned, reminiscent of the 1970s.
Attacks on Music 2 and Extension
The proposed Music 2 examination allocates 40 marks each to written and performance exams, with restrictive performance options and limited topic choices. That curbs students’ ability to pursue their interests. The composition component, worth 20 marks, mandates a duet, trio, or accompanied solo within a narrow focus on recent Australian art music. While these changes may aim for equity, they undermine the syllabus’s flexibility and breadth. Similarly, the Extension examination now limits specialisations, requiring either two performance pieces (including an ensemble) or two compositions, alongside another 50-mark written aural exam focused on unspecified ‘prescribed’ repertoire—an approach reminiscent of rigid external testing. NESA’s pushing of written exams is a return to post-Sputnik debates about legitimising music in the curriculum in the 1950s.
We assume – we hope – NESA does not realise that it is repeating the mistakes of 70 years ago.
What does the research base really tell us?
The current curriculum reform, meant to be based on the Geoff Masters reviewNurturing Wonder and Igniting Passion, diverges significantly from its recommendations. The report called for simplifying an overcrowded curriculum but the new music syllabuses introduce more content points and prescriptive structures. It advocated integrating knowledge and skills, yet the new syllabuses prioritise what Elliott & Silverman term “verbal knowledge”—written knowledge about music—over musical knowledge, assessed through music-making.
A restrictive, exam-focused syllabus will inevitably result in restrictive, exam-focused teaching.
We need transparent curriculum reform led by experts
NSW is the biggest education system nationally and has led the way with senior secondary music enrolments for many years. This is due to its focus on active music making and promoting choice for students. That in turn places value on the musical interests of students, their autonomy, agency and inclusion.
We asked our Melbourne colleague Emily Wilson what she made of the new draft syllabuses and she said “Following a recent major review of the Victorian Certification of Education Music Study Design, we now have ‘Music Inquiry’, a project-based music subject explicitly positioned as music-for-everyone, moving Victoria closer to the existing NSW HSC Music 1 course.
Every student a stakeholder
“We have been looking to NSW for almost 35 years to lead the way with a progressive curricula. It’s important that this continues so that senior secondary music curricula keeps pace with the ever increasing rate of change in the music industry and broader society. Every Australian student and music teacher is a stakeholder in the NSW HSC Music Syllabus.”
James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney. He specialises in teaching music pedagogies, technology in music education, and musical creativities. James publishes traditional research focusing on music teacher worldview, technology and media in music education, and artistic practice as research. He is also a composer and producer whose music is performed in major venues around the world.
After a career as a music teacher and head teacher in NSW schools, and Chief Examiner of HSC Music in NSW, Jennifer Carter worked as a Senior Registration Officer at the NSW Education Standards Authority. She was a sessional lecturer for primary music and secondary music preservice teachers and has presented at music conferences both nationally and internationally. Her PhD thesis researched secondary classroom music teachers and the development of music syllabus documents.
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.
“I’m not here to make you feel guilty, but I’m here to give you truths and facts that ensure that the pain ends with us” is how the Uncles from the Stolen Generation begin their stories of tragedy, trauma and survival. We are with Uncles fromKBHAC (Kinchela Boys Home Aboriginal Corporation) who are speaking to around 100 students and staff at the University of Sydney. KBHAC was established in 2002 to support survivors of the Kinchela Boys Home to heal and reconcile from their experiences of trauma by honoring their narratives and recovering their stolen identities, by engaging in truth-telling.
Through established processes, their Care Model and networks of support, empower each survivor to “take control of their future” and break the cycle of trauma. The Uncles establish a safe space for the largely non-Indigenous preservice teacher audience to learn by making it clear that they do not intend for the audience to feel shamed, attacked, or guilty for the past. Telling their story, talking about their culture and the impact of their removal from their families and culture, supports their healing. The Uncles invite listeners to learn from their stories, with no judgment toward those without prior knowledge of Aboriginal histories and cultures. As they explain, this is an opportunity to educate future teachers so their grandchildren have teachers with a deeper understanding and empathy for Aboriginal children and their families.
Engaging hearts and engaging minds
The process of listening to Aboriginal narratives of lived experiences creates a deep emotional engagement that we argue is critical to learning; that is, an openness and willingness to engage in deep listening, understanding, learning, and feeling (Thorpe et al, in press). For effective learning and change to take place, emotions need to be awakened, expressed, understood and unpacked. Engaging hearts to engage minds contrasts sharply with dominant Western approaches that emphasise objectivity and positivist knowledge.
This deep emotional engagement allows and legitimizes the sharing of personal experiences and truth-telling, giving a human face to complex issues, and bridging the disconnect between policy and the people, communities and Countries that are affected by these. Rather than textbook teaching, learning from an Uncle sharing his experiences of discrimination today and his efforts to shield his family from these experiences, provides listeners who may be emotionally and intellectually disconnected from this reality, an opportunity to understand history as a living reality for Aboriginal peoples in this country.
Motivation to do better
Emotional discomfort, difficult conversations and disquieting knowledges are important for channeling negative emotions into motivation to do better. Engaging in controversial and complex dialogue builds critical consciousness to work towards a more equal, equitable society. Lasting change requires support from the ground up, where dominant attitudes cannot easily be shifted by changes in power.
Embodying Truth-Telling through Learning From Country
Learning from Country (LFC) is a pedagogical approach that involves being present and going on a journey with Aboriginal Elders and community members on Country to experience Aboriginal narratives of place and the effects of colonisation. By collaborating with Aboriginal organizations such as KBHAC, pre-service teachers have opportunities to deepen their understanding of Aboriginal cultures, histories and knowledges through place-based learning on Country.
The University of Sydney’s Learning From Country (LFC) course is a three-week intensive program that engages hearts to engage minds, where most of the teaching time is spent learning from Aboriginal community-based educators. Through this approach, complex issues are addressed, and negative perceptions about Aboriginal peoples are challenged to educate and empower preservice teachers to create culturally-safe classrooms. Pre-service teachers come to understand their privilege, how it shapes their reality and feel motivated to ameliorate these inequalities for their future students. The transformative impact of these experiences is noted by one preservice teachers
The emotion and pain in the room was palpable, but in hearing those stories and bringing them to light, I felt as a room it was a shared feeling of motivation as educators to do what we could in our roles to support breaking those cycles of intergenerational trauma. As an educator, I want to hold onto the grief that I felt in that room for the people that were and still affected by those policies and use it to motivate and inform my actions.
The Way Forward
The LFC approach of engaging hearts to engage minds provides a way forward by thinking about what is critical in developing culturally responsive teachers who feel empowered to challenge the education systems which continue to fail Aboriginal children. When students’ lifeworlds are not reflected in curriculum and assessment, when their families and communities are victims of the system claiming to help them, and their histories of trauma, tragedy and survival are silenced, disengagement, failure and alienation ensues.
Thus, programs like LFC that collaborate with Aboriginal community-based educators and organisations such as KBHAC, provide opportunities to rewrite dominant narratives, beginning with teachers emotionally engaging with Aboriginal histories, cultures and communities for the benefit of their future students, and society. Our mission is to never let another cohort of Australian students go through the system without knowing the true history of this country.
From left to right: Study Abroad student Caroline Pontaoe is a third-year student at Cornell University, USA is studying education in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. While studying at the University of Sydney, she researched Australian Aboriginal education policy and the significance of emotions in policy.
Cathie Burgess is an associate professor and researcher Aboriginal Community Engagement, Learning from Country and Leadership in Aboriginal Education programs at the Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney. Her teaching and research centres on the transformative impact of Aboriginal community-led education in university and school education. Cathie’s work is acknowledged through the 2024 Teacher Educator of the Year Award, Honorary Life Member, NSW Aboriginal Education Consultative Group and Life Member, Aboriginal Studies Association NSW Email: cathie.burgess@sydney.edu.auValerie Harwood is a Professor of Sociology and Anthropology of Education in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney. Her research is centred on a social and cultural analysis of participation in educational futures. This work involves learning about collaborative approaches and in-depth fieldwork on educational justice with young people, families and communities.Email: Valerie.harwood@sydney.edu.au
Header image: Learning From Country July 2020. Aboriginal presenters Kareel Phillips, Macoy Hansen, Willy Gordon, Tiarna Fatnowna, Julie Welsh & Gloria Duffin. Lecturers Valerie Harwood (SSESW), Cathie Burgess (SSESW), Reakeeta Smallwood (Sydney Nursing School) with nursing students.
The NSW Minister for Education Prue Car has just announced important changes to professional development for registered teachers in NSW. Among them, ‘accredited’ PD has been dumped, along with the constraints of ‘mandatory priority areas’ introduced in 2021, and removing some time-consuming documentation and evaluation. The changes were announced directly to teachers last week via email. In an earnest talking head video, Prue Car vigorously defended the need to trust teachers, as “the architects of learning” and “the experts in identifying the tools and the resources …[they] need”.
While this focus on trust is admirable, the changes raise some serious questions.
What counts as teacher professional development?
The Minister emphasised that teachers will be trusted to “choose the professional development that suits their needs”. But when we look at the fine print, there are professional development activities currently highly valued by teachers that are either not included in the Government’s new framework, or explicitly excluded. This includes professional reading, collaborative planning, and the moderation of student assessment – core professional activities at the heart of good teaching practice. Furthermore, while research shows that ‘home grown’, school-based, teacher-led activities are highly effective in supporting teacher development, there is a disturbing pervasive idea that PD is something “delivered” to teachers by a “provider”.
Curiously, “compliance training” is, for the first time, explicitly included as professional development. First aid and child protection updates are undeniably important in maintaining teachers’ fitness to practice. But it is questionable whether they meet the benchmarks of high quality teacher professional development we should be aspiring to.
Who decides what teachers will do?
The second question is, who decides? While the Minister emphasised that the changes will “ensure that every hour of professional development that you do is relevant and valuable to you and your practice”, the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) website also states that employers “may choose areas of priority for their staff”, decisions which can be made at both a school and “system level”. There has been a trend toward NSW Department of Education ‘control and command’ approaches to dictating the focus and form of professional development activities for public school teachers. This suggests that teachers may continue to have little say in the kind of PD that matters to them.
The shift from ‘accredited providers’ to ‘recognised providers’ seems at odds with the Minister’s messaging, by reinforcing the idea that teachers are not best placed to decide which PD to engage with. The list of recognised providers will be “overseen by an expert advisory panel”, whose membership is as yet unclear. The use of the term ‘providers’ again suggests a view of PD as something ‘‘delivered’ to teachers rather than something they actively engage with and have ownership over.
Will teachers’ professional development be monitored?
Finally, while there does seem to be a reduction in administrative compliance work as part of this change, particularly for ‘providers’, teachers will still have to log their hours and be subject to an ‘audit process’ described by the Minister as “an annual review of the PD teachers have recorded so that the 100 hours of appropriate PD can be verified if needed”. This monitoring signals the continuation of “appropriate” teacher professional learning being defined by ‘experts’ (rather than by teachers themselves), which does not include many of the professional learning activities teachers may value the most.
Good teacher professional development is not measured in hours. If, in the words of the Minister, PD has “always been at the heart of [teachers’] practice… it was simply what teachers did”, then why is an auditable log of hours required? It hardly illustrates the ‘trust’ the Minister was at pains to express for teachers.
Increasing trust in teachers is a worthy and much-needed objective. But these changes make little meaningful progress toward it. While teacher PD continues to be framed as a set number of auditable ‘hours’ that are ‘delivered’ by ‘providers’, we will miss an opportunity to genuinely support teachers to do what they value and sustain them in the profession.
From left to right: Nicole Mockler is professor of education within the Sydney School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She has a background in secondary school teaching and teacher professional learning. Meghan Stacey is a senior lecturer in the UNSW School of Education, with a particular interest in teachers’ work. She has a background in teaching English and drama in public secondary schools. Claire Golledge is a lecturer in education and the co-ordinator of HSIE Curriculum (Secondary) in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She worked as a secondary teacher of humanities. Helen Watt is professor of educational psychology at the University of Sydney, initiator of the Network Gender & STEM (www.genderandSTEM.com) and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia.
Header image of Prue Car from the Minister’s Facebook page.
Every year when results for large scale tests such as NAPLAN are released, there is a need to remind parents – and people in general – about the need to reflect judiciously on what they really mean.
It is also very important to address the misconceptions that are promulgated by journalists who start off with a preconceived notion of what they want the results to say (for one reason or another) and then proceed to misinterpret and draw unsubstantiated conclusions that they argue support their notions.
This year’s NAPLAN is just another case in point.
Overall, the results are best summarised by the CEO of ACARA, Stephen Gniel when he says, “The data shows that while there were small increases and decreases across domains and year levels, overall the results were broadly stable.”
There are some good reasons for drawing this conclusion. The results, apart from some minor perturbations up-and-down in different domains, are indeed relatively stable.
JT: Only so much “growth”
To be honest, this should be expected because there is only so much “growth” that can occur across one or two years of learning and the only other data we can compare to is the NAPLAN 2023 data because the scale that is being used for comparison was only calibrated in 2023.
A trend requires more than two points to be able to be reliably interpreted. It is a relatively naïve view that would expect strategies that have been introduced to address issues identified in the 2023 results would generate significant changes across a system in one year.
It is also important when reflecting on these results to stress several points. Firstly, there is some emotive language used to summarise performance which should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
Students who have performed in the bottom two proficiency levels have been summarised as having “failed”. However, when interpreting results like NAPLAN it is important to go beyond the “label” and look at what skills these students have displayed. The proficiency levels describe what students in these levels know and can do and an analysis of these skill sets suggests that they have a wide range of skills that will serve them well in later studies.
JT: A sound springboard
The students in the bottom two levels have not “failed”. Knowledge and skills that students have displayed in the developing proficiency level are a sound springboard for learning within disciplines and through life.
Let’s focus on what it is that students know and can do rather than jumping to labels that detract from the real meaning of the results.
While the NAPLAN is a battery of psychometrically sound tests, they are only tests of literacy and numeracy (there is a lot more to schooling than a test result on literacy and numeracy only).
In addition, the results represent the outcomes on a particular day and a particular time. The key point here is that these results are only indicative. It is the trend data that are important at a system level. At an individual student level it is the cumulation of a range of data which provides the best evidence as to the overall performance of the student. The NAPLAN test scores must be interpreted by teachers using a wide range of data collected under different circumstances in the classroom.
Parents who are concerned because the results are not consistent with what they expect from their child/children should seek clarification from the teachers.
Jennifer Gore: We know what to do. Let’s do it
These NAPLAN results are not new and not surprising. They reflect the results we saw last year with the new NAPLAN testing and reporting process and results we’ve seen for years. The fact that a third of students are not meeting proficiency standards is of great concern and the fact they disproportionately come from disadvantaged and other equity backgrounds reflects our nation’s failure to reduce educational inequality.
Education Minister Jason Clare is correct that we need reforms. The important thing is we get the reforms right.
First, we need to fully fund our public schools and end the political football over funding. Second, we need to support teachers to deliver excellent teaching. The current push for explicit teaching and synthetic phonics can only be part of the solution. Students are more than their brains. They learn in social and emotional conditions that also need to be addressed. For example, after a decade of explicit teaching and synthetic phonics, students in England are at an all-time low for enjoyment of reading, languishing toward the bottom of all OCED countries on this measure.
JG: You too can be like Cessnock
A decade of research at the University of Newcastle, including five randomised controlled trials, offers an alternative approach to school reform. Results from Cessnock High School, one of the most disadvantaged schools in NSW, shows how our evidence-based approach to improving teaching quality, regardless of the instructional strategies used, can change lives. Cessnock High achieved the most improved NAPLAN growth from Year 7 to 9 in the Hunter region and 11th overall in the state by engaging in whole school Quality Teaching Rounds. Simultaneously, teachers reported greater morale and improved school culture, which are critical factors in addressing the current teacher shortage crisis.
Thanks to funding from the Australian Government, thousands of teachers from across the country can now access this evidence-backed professional development for free.
From left to right:Jim Tognolini is Professor and Director of the Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment (CEMA) at the University of Sydney. Jennifer Gore is the Laureate Professor and director of the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre at the University of Newcastle. She developed the Quality Teaching Rounds.
Imagine asking a five year old to name basic body parts. That kid’s known an eye from an elbow since the age of two.
This is the clearest indication we have that NSW syllabus writers have it so wrong. Some of the science knowledge is too simple, other ideas are too hard. Worst of all, it could lead to a return to regurgitating facts.
Why don’t syllabus writers take advice from education researchers? This question applies to both the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA).
Advice largely ignored
Twice in the last two years a group of science education researchers from multiple NSW universities gave extensive, research-informed advice on primary science syllabus drafts. That advice was largely ignored.
Problems which exist in the new NSW Science and Technology K-6 syllabus released last week could have been avoided. The consultation process is flawed when the people whose job it is to keep up with research about learning and teaching in science (and technology) are brushed aside. We need to create a school curriculum fit for contemporary students that gets the balance of intrigue and difficulty right. The views of primary teachers who usually lack strong knowledge in science must be balanced by research insights from science educators. NSW now has a syllabus like a leaky bucket, full of holes that science educators now must help teachers fix.
In developing the previous, 2017, syllabus, three science educators – Anne Forbes from Macquarie University, Helen Georgiou from Wollongong University and myself – spent a day with the syllabus writers advising on knowledge content. This collaboration resulted in a higher quality syllabus with accurate science ideas that were sequenced to match student ages.
NESA claims: that “For the first time the K-6 curriculum is being developed cohesively to support depth of learning and enhance student engagement.” The science and technology section falls short of this aim.
Facts vs Inquiry
When you download the Science and Technology K-6 syllabus from the NSEA website, it reads like a list of facts to be remembered. I worry the lists of facts followed by specific examples will mean more rote learning and less engaging practical work for children.
Inquiry is an essential science practice. Eminent science education scholar Roger Bybee (UK) argued over a decade ago “Inquiry is central to science . . . it should be basic in the design of school science programs, selection of instructional materials and implementation of teaching strategies”. Critically the word inquiry is not found in the Science and Technology K-6. Syllabus. Distinguished Alfred Deakin Professor of Science Education Russell Tytler agrees that in this time of wicked problems like climate change and advancing technologies we must build a generation of thinkers capable of advanced problem solving.
Kindergarten is too easy, other years’ content is too hard
Some topics do not suit students of different ages, despite advice from experts at four universities. Kindergarten ideas are too easy – naming basic human body parts is pre-school level. That means young learners will be bored and not engaged.
Why does that matter? In kindergarten, children’s initial views about science and technology form. Their self‐perceptions as learners of science and technology matter and potentially impact future STEM‐related pursuits. I argue that the first year of school is the ideal time to engage children in practical inquiry. It’s also the ideal time to inspire a love of learning in science. School science learning should be stimulating from the start. Insufficient focus on basic physics misses the opportunity for children to explore how toys work.
In later years knowledge does not match students’ learning capabilities. Aligning knowledge with age-level is vital for successful learning. Some topics are slated for vastly different year levels than the Australian Curriculum, whilst content and examples are more suited to – and already taught in – high school. Examples include:
The topic of Light is Year 5 level in the national curriculum, but is to be taught in years one to two in NSW – Why? That light can be reflected and refracted is better suited to late primary (years five to six). Extra ideas of light dispersion and absorption would be misplaced in late primary, let alone years one and two.
It gets worse
It gets worse, the more abstract ideas have been added to topics, which will hinder deep learning. Despite aims to ‘declutter’ the primary syllabus, more knowledge has been taken from secondary level. Take, for example, the transfer of heat energy taught in years three to four. It was previously limited to conduction (contact) but now includes ‘convection and radiation’. These processes cannot be observed directly which makes it difficult to understand them. The expectation that students will be able to ‘compare how different materials absorb or reflect heat energy’ is unrealistic for primary level.
Example content includes ideas that students cannot observe directly, which makes it difficult to learn in primary school. Complex ideas in years three to four include ‘force of gravity keeps Earth, moons and planets in their positions in the solar system’ and years five to six ‘coordination of human body systems’. Both are high school level in the national curriculum.
Writing is privileged over multimodal communication
Writing alone is not a good way to learn science and technology ideas. Australian research shows that learning and thinking is advanced when children use many ways to communicate. Teachers should encourage children to draw, talk, move their bodies, use gestures, make models as well as writing to support science and technology learning. Research led by Deakin University colleagues Russell Tytler, Vaughan Prain and Peter Hubber and my own study (with Peter) show when students create multi-modal representations they engage with and learn ideas deeper. The approach also helps students see how scientists generate knowledge and motivates their learning in science and technology.
It is not too late
We cannot afford to rely on a syllabus that looks like a litany of everything that we had last century – Human biology, reduced physics in the early years and jumbled facts for memorisation and recall. Hopefully the web-based syllabus will allow NESA to review the content lists and examples. The compound outcomes, that don’t make sense, can be made more achievable by getting the content and examples at the right level for students.The opportunity exists with the help of science educators to fix the problems outlined here before the syllabus is implemented in primary schools in 2027.
Christine Preston is an associate professor in science education in the School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She has taught science in primary and secondary school and her research interests include science for 5-year-olds, embodied learning in maths and science, citizen science, teacher quality.
The crisis facing teachers and the teaching profession over the last decade at an international level is well-established in both the academic literature and industry reports.
Borne by compliance-driven and bureaucratic policies that have heightened accountability and scrutiny over teachers’ work, a large body of evidence has documented the negative impacts felt by teachers resulting from these policies. This includes excessive workloads and intensification of work, elevated stress and burnout, and diminished health and wellbeing. Flatlining salaries and poor professional respect have also culminated to create a disincentive to enter into the profession.
These pressures have contributed to a growing teacher shortage internationally. The situation is so dire the United Nations (UN) has recently recommended an urgent call to action to transform education systems and the teaching profession globally.
The UN described the COVID-19 pandemic as having “turned the world of work upside down”. On top of the pressures experienced pre-pandemic, it is crucial to understand how the work of teachers changed post-pandemic. In a recently published article, we explored the legacy impact of the pandemic on school teachers’ work.
COVID-19: Disrupting a profession in crisis
Teachers’ work changed fundamentally due to COVID. In a matter of weeks following the World Health Organization declaring a worldwide pandemic in early 2020, governments began directing schools to shut down and shift to remote teaching and learning of students.
This experience of remote learning for teachers was fairly short-lived, particularly compared to other sectors where working-from-home has increased and sustained beyond pre-pandemic levels. But empirical studies in Australia and internationally documented the significant disruption faced by teachers from this dramatic shift to their normal ways of working. Teachers’ stress and anxiety increased substantially during the pandemic, workloads grew, and resilience was challenged.
To ensure continuity of learning, teachers had to very quickly upskill in new technological platforms and systems, working around-the-clock to support their students, despite reports of many teachers feeling very unprepared and overwhelmed. EdTech companies seized the pandemic as an opportunity to further roll out digital technologies and online learning support to help schools during intense remote learning while profiting significantly.
The teacher workforce shortage problem was made even more acute by the pandemic, mirroring the ‘great resignation’ trend occurring elsewhere in the world of work where millions voluntarily quit their jobs in a re-evaluation of their life and career decisions.
Post-COVID: Sustained impacts for the teaching profession?
The World Health Organization announced in mid-2023 that the pandemic was no longer a public health emergency. As economies and societies moved to recover from the global pandemic, the opportunity is ripe to consider how ways of working have fundamentally changed, or not, from the world of work being ‘turned upside down’.
In a recent article, we outlined a research agenda to understand ways in which the pandemic may have marked an inflection point in disrupting education systems, specifically its sustained impact on teachers’ work and workload. We were curious to understand how the pandemic reshaped or hastened existing thinking and practice around teachers’ use of technology, delivery models of education, and more flexible ways of working. While it is difficult to establish direct causal links, we were interested to understand the ways in which teachers’ work and workload has been changing in light of these complex crises and the impact of these global trends.
As experts in work and employment, we looked to broader patterns of change happening in the world of work, which the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated, such as remote and flexible work, automation, and augmentation to work roles and content of work, to understand what was happening to teachers’ work. Our call for further research on these trends was complemented with an interview-based project with school teachers and leaders in New South Wales, in which we share some emerging insights, to understand how the pandemic has changed teachers’ work.
How is teachers’ work changing?
Classroom teaching remains primarily a face-to-face learning experience in physical environments for five days a week with a relatively small number of students (unlike the massification of higher education), supported by online learning.
There are some early signs of departure from notions of fixed time and place for learning. While in interviews, some teachers mentioned that “I don’t think that fully online is the answer”, there are examples of ways that schools are experimenting with hybrid or blended ways of learning. Flexible arrangements in the form of a four-day school week have been introduced and tested in states such as Queensland in Australia and Missouri in the USA as a way to save teachers’ time and manage costs and staff shortages.
Advancements in artificial intelligence have activated discussions around enabling teachers to work more efficiently and effectively through automating repetitive tasks and standardizing processes. ‘Time-saving’ strategies for teachers have also been proposed in policy solutions like the NSW Department of Education’s ‘Quality Time’ Program which uses online tools of ‘banks’ of curriculum and lesson planning material to support teachers’ lesson preparation.
Yet, these developments have potentially major impacts for how teachers carry out their work and in understanding the way the ‘job’ of teaching is changing. And further questions remain on the implications for students’ learning and needs around social and emotional connection, as well as impacts on parents and local communities from changing models of learning.
Always on, always available
For example, concerns have been raised about the ways the pandemic intensified the expectations of teachers (and other professional workers) to be ‘always on and available’ to work. This was a concern directly raised by teachers in our interviews, with one reporting the encroachment of work activities on their ‘personal’ time: “it’s crazy, it just feels like it’s never ending, you feel like you’re just constantly on your computer”. In response, new industrial and policy provisions in New South Wales and Queensland are empowering public school teachers with the right to ‘digitally disconnect’ to limit non-urgent communications, protect teachers’ non-work time, and support their wellbeing, with this right to become available for other workers Australia-wide under new legislation.
Many teachers also anticipate online delivery of learning to continue in the future, yet have tempered this with caution of the knock-on effects for students, as one teacher commented: “I can definitely see these online platforms, like this online delivery of content being really big in the future. I definitely think that’s going to take over most of content delivery “teaching”. But there’s still such a need for relationships and that social interaction.”
Careful consideration needed
Technologies and emerging work arrangements are changing the way that teachers carry out their work, which has been intensified with the pandemic. But careful consideration is needed of the implications of these trends so that teachers’ professional autonomy and expertise is protected and so that there is due consideration of the impact of changes on teachers’ workload and working conditions.
Mihajla Gavin is a senior lecturer in the Business School at the University of Technology Sydney.Her research is onl education reforms affecting teachers’ conditions of work. Find her on Twitter @Mihajla_Gavin. Susan McGrath-Champ is Professor in the Work and Organisational Studies Discipline at the University of Sydney Business School, Australia. Her research includes the geographical aspects of the world of work, employment relations and international human resource management.
This disruption is the focus of a project I have been developing with colleagues at the University of Sydney.
What’s the problem?
More than twenty years of critique on EBP exists in academia, alerting us to problems for the teaching profession, initial teacher education (ITE), student learning, wellbeing, and life outcomes, democracy, and more. Central to the problems of EBP is the removal of discussion on the purpose of education and in turn the limiting of education to learning.
Teaching is a non-causal practice but EBP relies on causal research, with random controlled trials as the gold standard. That neglects the breadth of research that supports understanding of – and engagement with- the complexity of teaching. The range of teaching approaches become limited to options offered from causal research.
Other professions have questioned, challenged, even moved on from EBP. Social work has recognised the damage of EBP as ‘evidence-based oppression’ through neglect for attention to structural issues in society favouring the neoliberal focus on individuals and individual responsibility.
What is needed in education to pushback on the dominance of evidence-based practice?
Broad understanding of the problem is needed beyond academic discourse. We have over twenty years of academic critique of EBP. Yet it it rarely reaches professional media for teachers, school leaders and other education stakeholders to access. It rarely reaches mainstream media for parents/carers and the broader general public.
False claims need to be highlighted. Amongst the many falsehoods espoused in the construction of EBP’s dominance is the absence of evidence in EBP claims.
In the subordination of teachers, research is pre-digested into easy-to-read summaries for teachers to know the practices being prescribed are ‘evidence-based’. Such pre-digestion of research is selective presentation of evidence to promote desired practices. It further removes teachers from engagement with research evidence.
Teaching must be valued for the complex, ‘problematic’ practice that it is. Wider understanding is needed on how teachers have and do use evidence to build relationship between teaching and learning to support other teachers and school leaders, along with teacher educators and PSTs. Teachers have been making evidence informed decisions for action long before the emergence of EBP. Matthew Clarke reminded us at the AARE/ATEA/ACDE event that evidence is not proof, and that evidence cannot speak for itself, rather evidence must be interpreted.
We need to reclaim and clarify the language of Evidence Informed Practice (EIP): drawing on the work of Helen Timperley who presented EIP as involving integrated analysis of evidence from research, evidence from teaching, evidence from students to make decisions for further action within an ongoing cycle of practice whereby further evidence is collected through action. EIP involves practitioners in the collection and analysis of evidence to make decisions for action with broader consideration to the purposes of education. It utilises evidence in consideration to the context and the possibilities from other contexts. Evidence Informed Practice recognises a broad range of evidence including a much broader value for the diversity of research than EBP’s reliance on causal research. EIP is research in itself and when formalised and shared enables practice to feed back into research and policy development.
So, what are we doing?
First is a forthcoming paper tracking how education has come to be in this position of EBP dominance drawing together the breadth of academic critique.
Next is a multi-stakeholder workshop that will happen later this year, leading to the development of a green paper for public consultation to inform the development of a white paper to give school leaders, policymakers, and others a basis on which to pushback on the dominance of EBP and strength to develop their EIP.
From there will be a program of research. Pivotal will be case studies of EIP in action in schools to share insight to the complexities of practice, the scope for how teachers engage in EIP, and the wide-ranging benefits for children, young people, teachers, and society. The case studies will provide further basis for teachers and schools to pushback on the dominance of EBP and guidance in using EIP. From there we will work with schools to support practitioner inquiry to develop EIP. Threaded through this program of research will be ongoing exploration of work with PSTs positioning them as agents for change in the transition from EBP to EIP through the development of reciprocal learning during professional experience and into their early career teaching.
Nicole Brunker is a senior lecturer in the School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney. She was a teacher and principal before moving into Initial Teacher Education where she has led foundational units of study in pedagogy, sociology, psychology and philosophy. Her research interests include school experience, alternative paths of learning, Initial Teacher Education pedagogy, and innovative qualitative methodologies. Current research projects include the diversity of pre-service teacher apprenticeships of observation and disrupting evidence-based practice in education. You can find her on LInkedIn and on X:
