|
Teachers make daily decisions about what students can handle: what texts to read, what tasks to attempt, what behaviours are acceptable. But sometimes, these decisions aren’t maximising a child’s full potential. They’re based on assumptions about a child’s background, perceived ability, or past performance. This is what the speechwriter Michael Gerson coined as “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” And it remains one of the most damaging and insidious forms of inequity in education. What It Looks Like in Practice The “soft bigotry” isn’t overt prejudice. It’s subtle. It sounds like:
As Noel Pearson, Indigenous leader and education advocate, has warned: “Low expectations are the scourge of disadvantaged schools. They are the disease that infects schools with endemic failure.” But when we raise the bar and teach with belief, incredible things happen Every Child, Every Chance: Changing the Narrative Take the quiet child whose previous teacher rarely heard her speak. She seemed content to fade into the background; until warm calling invited her into the conversation with kindness and consistency. In the beginning, her answers seemed to surprise her as much as anyone. Soon, she was one of the first to put her hand up, keen to share her thinking. Her confidence hadn’t appeared overnight. It had been built, brick by brick, because someone believed her voice mattered. And so she started to believe that it mattered too. Or the Prep student who couldn’t count to three when she arrived. Rather than hold her back or simplify the content, we gave her full access to the same high-quality maths instruction as her peers; with scaffolding and support where needed. Slowly, she caught up. By year’s end, she was one of our strongest mathematical thinkers. She didn’t need a watered-down curriculum; she needed a chance. And then there was the class who couldn’t sit on the mat for more than a few minutes: restless, distracted, and disconnected. It would’ve been easy to lower expectations, to teach in five-minute bursts or avoid whole-class instruction altogether. But we didn’t. We built their stamina. We made the lessons engaging, checked for understanding constantly, and taught behaviour as intentionally as we taught reading. Within weeks, they were locked in. By mid-year, they could sit together for 30 minutes of rich, focused instruction: fully present and thriving. What High Expectations Really Mean Having high expectations isn’t about demanding perfection or pushing kids too hard. It’s about:
Zig Engelmann, creator of Direct Instruction, said it well: “If the student hasn't learned, the teacher hasn't taught. And if the student can't learn, the teacher hasn't found the way to teach.” Breaking the Cycle To fight the soft bigotry of low expectations, we must first look inward. We must ask:
You belong here. We believe in you. Let’s get to work. No child should be held back by our assumptions. Let’s be bold and ensure every child can thrive. 
0 Comments
As educators, it’s heartening to see the growing interest in the science of learning—a body of research that explores how the brain learns best and how we can use that knowledge to teach more effectively. This can be seen in the Victorian Teaching and Learning Model 2.0 and other frameworks across the country. However, with this growing interest, a range of myths and misunderstandings are starting to emerge. These myths can paint an inaccurate, even disheartening, picture of what informed, effective teaching looks like. At worst, they risk turning teachers away from approaches that actually support their professional judgment, creativity, and connection with students. Let’s take a closer look at five common myths: and the truths that bust them wide open. I’ve also included real-world classroom examples to show how vibrant and powerful learning becomes when we embrace the science of learning. Myth 1: “We can’t display students’ work in the classroom anymore.” Truth: We absolutely can: we just need to be intentional about how we do it. One of the most persistent myths is that a Science of Learning approach means blank walls and lifeless rooms. But this is a misinterpretation of cognitive load theory. The research doesn’t say “no displays”. It says to avoid unnecessary distractions. When students are learning something new, the last thing they need is clutter pulling their attention away from the teacher, whiteboard, and core learning visuals. But displays can have a powerful place in the classroom, especially when they’re curated carefully and used purposefully. A source of pride in my own classroom has been our “Grow Wall.” It’s a space where students choose work they’re proud of- writing, artwork, maths challenges they’ve conquered- and we display it proudly. We refresh the wall regularly, and it tells a story of growth and achievement. Crucially, it’s placed at the back of the room, away from the direct line of sight during instruction, but right where parents can see it during drop-off and where students line up during the day. The wall celebrates student voice and effort without competing with the cognitive focus of a lesson. When we understand the research, we can embrace celebration and clarity. Myth 2: “Differentiation is dead.” Truth: We’re still differentiating; just more effectively, and more sustainably. Differentiation has long been a pillar of great teaching, but it’s also often a vague concept that becomes both misunderstood and unsustainable. Misunderstanding differentiation often involves teachers creating multiple versions of the same lesson, or “watering down” tasks in the name of accessibility. That approach is exhausting, and it rarely delivers equity or excellence. The science of learning encourages us to ensure all students can engage with the same core knowledge and skills through strong instruction, effective scaffolds, and meaningful opportunities to deepen learning. It’s about making sure every student can succeed with the core learning, while giving those ready for more the chance to stretch and go deeper. It’s not about watering things down, but lifting everyone up. I had the pleasure of recently seeing a teacher run a brilliant lesson on story structure. Every student was given a series of images and asked to sort them into narrative components—character, setting, problem, solution, and ending. This task gave every student access to the big idea. Then came the differentiation:
Myth 3: “There’s no space for creativity or critical thinking.” Truth: Knowledge builds the foundation for both. Another common misconception is that explicit instruction and knowledge-rich learning “kill creativity.” But the opposite is true: you can’t think deeply about something you don’t understand, and you can’t create with concepts you haven’t yet grasped. When students have strong foundational knowledge, they ask better questions, make richer connections, and generate more original ideas. Their creativity isn’t diminished: it’s informed. In my classroom, as we explored the world of Greek mythology, students began making comparisons that sparked rich, critical discussion. One student wondered if Ariel from The Little Mermaid might be related to Poseidon. Another asked whether Jesus and Zeus were similar. Someone else questioned what really causes lightning; was it Zeus, as the myths suggested, or something more scientific? These conversations didn’t happen in a vacuum. They were the result of structured knowledge-building. The content gave them the tools to play, question, and imagine; and that’s true creativity. Myth 4: “Students are becoming robots.” Truth: Calm, focused classrooms amplify student voices. There’s a worry that orderly classrooms stifle children’s personalities. The claim persists that if students are listening, following routines, and focused on their work, they must be “robotic.” We need to challenge that. Calm classrooms aren’t quiet because of compliance. They’re calm because students know what to do. There’s security in routine, clarity in expectations, and freedom in structure. In that space, more students get to participate, especially those who might otherwise be overshadowed. One of the greatest highlights of my career has been supporting a student who was selectively mute. Over time, with consistent routines, gentle encouragement, and clear expectations, she found her voice. A classroom that some might call “strict” was, in her case, a sanctuary; one that helped her feel seen, safe, and successful. Children aren’t robots. They’re inherently joyful, curious, and capable. A well-structured classroom doesn’t suppress that; it makes space for it to flourish. Myth 5: “It robs teachers of their artistry.” Truth: The science of learning empowers great teaching; it doesn’t strip away our professional flair. This is perhaps the myth that stings the most because it strikes at the heart of our profession. Teachers are artists. We build relationships, adapt to the moment, and respond with creativity and heart. So when we hear “science of learning,” some worry that it means robotic delivery that erases our individuality. But here’s the truth: I’ve never visited two great classrooms that were identical. Even when a lesson is scripted, each teacher brings their own tone, personality, and strengths. I worked with a teacher last year who brought music into every part of her practice. She had a song for nearly everything: transitions, spelling rules, even maths strategies! That was her superpower. While I’ve got a few songs up my sleeve, it’s not my strong suit, and that’s okay. I am still able to let my teaching shine in other ways. The science of learning gives us the foundation to stand on, but it doesn’t define how we dance. It helps more students learn more effectively, more often. And when teachers feel confident in what works, it frees them to do what they do best: teach with joy, flair, and purpose.
On Wednesday night I found myself in the local emergency department. My son had jumped off a slide and the call I received from his after school care made it clear that it wasn’t one of those “walk it off” injuries. He was in real pain, and he needed medical care straight away. At the hospital, the triage nurse greeted us warmly, reassured my son, and got straight to work. She asked a series of questions that were clearly part of a structured script. It was calm, efficient, and comforting. That script didn’t make her robotic; it made her effective. She still smiled, cracked a joke or two, and treated us like people, not a checklist. This experience reminded me just how valuable good systems can be: especially when things are complex, high-stakes, and time-pressured. It’s the same with teaching. Lately, there’s been some debate about so-called “teacher-proof” maths lessons. A recent blog post claimed that these lessons won’t work, and that teachers should be creating everything from scratch so they can better respond to students’ needs. But that’s a false dichotomy. Let’s be clear: using a script or pre-designed lesson doesn’t mean teaching without thought or care. It means having a well-researched, carefully constructed recipe to follow: one that saves us from having to reinvent the wheel every day. And like any good recipe, we adjust the ingredients. You don’t force-feed egg to someone with an allergy. Similarly, you don’t deliver a lesson exactly as written when it’s not quite right for the learners in front of you. Many of these lessons have been created by highly experienced teachers; colleagues who have spent hours refining them so others don’t have to start from scratch. In fact, I’ve helped put some of them together myself. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they are strong, structured, and well-sequenced. I had the time to really fine-tune these lessons, bringing them to a higher standard than I normally could. Carefully pre-designed lessons give teachers a solid base to build from, not a cage to be trapped in. The criticism that scripted lessons remove professional judgement misunderstands how most of us actually use these resources. No one’s handing over their classroom autonomy. We’re using these tools to free up time and cognitive space so we can focus on the things that matter most: our students’ learning, questions, and needs. Take daily reviews, for example. The suggestion that every teacher should be crafting their own daily review slides, every single day, sounds great in theory, but it doesn’t align with the real demands of the classroom. It takes hours. And that time has to come from somewhere; usually planning, marking, sleep, or time with family. We need high-quality teaching resources not because we’re lazy or disengaged, but because we’re smart and committed. When we can rely on good materials, we have more capacity to focus on formative assessment, to provide feedback, to build relationships, and to actually teach. Teaching is too important to be left to chance. A good script won’t make you a great teacher; but it’ll help you become one faster, with fewer barriers in your way. Just like that triage nurse, we can follow the plan and connect with the humans in front of us. Let’s stop pretending it has to be one or the other.  Recent findings from the Grattan Institute’s The Maths Guarantee report have once again brought attention to a challenge many of us see every day: too many students are slipping through the cracks in maths. The good news? The report doesn’t just highlight the problem: it offers a clear, research-backed way forward through structured teaching, targeted support, and professional growth. As teachers and leaders, we care deeply; but we’re also busy. That’s why I’ve curated a practical set of resources aligned to the report’s key recommendations. Think of it as a toolkit to help move from ideas to action, so we can make a real difference, without reinventing the wheel. Books to build understanding
Screener for early identification
Curriculum
Recorded webinars
The Grattan report isn’t just another document to add to the pile. It’s a practical blueprint backed by decades of research. But its real power lies in what we do next. Let’s use the tools at our fingertips to ensure every student builds the strong mathematical foundation they deserve.  There’s a pattern we see far too often. A new report is released. Headlines follow:
If you’ve ever felt that sting, you’re not alone. Many teachers feel it; and rightly so. We care deeply about what we do. So when someone says the system isn’t working, it’s hard not to take that personally. But here’s a gentle reminder: Criticism of the system isn’t the same as criticism of teachers. In fact, the two are often worlds apart. Teachers Are Doing the Work; But the System Isn’t When people raise concerns about student outcomes or what’s happening in schools, they’re often responding to what the research is telling us: that many children are not being set up to succeed, especially in reading and maths. That doesn’t mean teachers aren’t trying. It doesn’t mean you’re not doing your absolute best. It means we’ve been working in a system that hasn’t always given teachers what they need:
Why It Feels Personal Teaching is human work. We invest more than just time and energy: we put in heart. That’s why criticism hits hard. We see our own names between the lines of those headlines, even when they’re not there. But we can’t afford to confuse critique of a structure with an attack on the people inside it. It’s like blaming the firefighter for the faulty smoke alarm. You’re in the building, doing your job, but the warning system should’ve been working long before you got there. What If We Reframed It? Instead of hearing, “teachers are failing,” what if we heard this: “Our system has failed to equip teachers with the clarity, consistency, and tools they need; and we can do better.” Because that’s the truth. You’re already doing more than enough. But the system? It hasn’t caught up with what we know works. And naming that isn’t about blaming teachers. It’s about backing them. So What Now? Here’s what we can do as educators, leaders, and learners:
and maybe that’s okay. Because with the right mindset, critique isn’t a threat. It’s an opportunity. A sign that people care. That they want better: for students, and for you. So the next time the headlines come rolling in, remind yourself: They’re not talking about you. They’re talking about what you deserve. A system that works with you, not against you. Let’s build that system. Together.  Photo by Luis Cortés on Unsplash In every classroom, there’s a balancing act between giving all students a voice and maintaining the flow of a lesson. One powerful strategy for ensuring widespread engagement is cold calling, where the teacher selects students to respond without relying on volunteers. But despite its effectiveness, the term can feel, well, cold. That’s why it’s crucial to explore how cold calling can be used with warmth, intention, and careful attention to student needs. What is Cold Calling? Cold calling is a technique where teachers select students to answer questions or contribute to discussions without asking for volunteers. That’s right: it removes the need for students to raise their hands. This breaks the pattern of relying on the same few students and makes participation a shared responsibility. The key purpose? To keep all students thinking, listening, and ready to contribute because any one of them might be called on. But if not used thoughtfully, cold calling can cause anxiety or disengagement. That’s why implementation matters just as much as the idea itself. Cold Calling with Warmth Here’s how to take the “cold” out of cold calling: 1. Teach first One of the most effective ways to take the “cold” out of cold calling is to teach first. When we ensure that students have had clear instruction, time to process, and maybe even a chance to rehearse their thinking with a partner, cold calling no longer feels like being put on the spot; it feels like being invited to contribute. We’re not asking students to guess or take a wild stab in the dark; we’re asking them to share something they’ve already started building understanding around. When we teach first, cold calling becomes a natural extension of learning, not a pop quiz in disguise. 2. Normalise Participation From the first week of school, I let students know that I’ll be inviting and expecting everyone to contribute: not to catch them out, but because I care about them and their thinking matters. I am always careful to emphasise that making mistakes is a part of learning. When a student says, “But I didn’t have my hand up!” I gently respond, “That’s okay, I still care about what you think.” It’s a small moment, but a powerful reminder that their voice matters, even when they weren’t expecting to share. 3. Use Warm Language and Tone Cold calling is not about catching students off guard or making them feel exposed—it’s about showing that their thinking matters. I avoid abrupt or evaluative language and instead frame my questions with curiosity and encouragement: “I’d love to hear your take on this, Bec.” “Hmm, Jackson, what do you reckon?” “Let’s go to Tahlia—how are you thinking about this one?” The tone we use communicates intent. When we ask with warmth and genuine interest, students are more likely to feel safe, valued, and willing to take risks. The way we ask matters just as much as who we ask. Seem Random, Be Intentional It’s tempting to make cold calling appear random by using popsicle sticks, name wheels, or digital randomisers. This can be useful early on, but the most effective teachers use strategic selection disguised as spontaneity. Why? Because not all questions are created equal.
Intentional cold calling means using our knowledge of our students to select in ways that support learning, inclusion, and confidence. Keep Everyone Thinking The real power of cold calling is that it raises the thinking stakes for everyone. Our students can’t check out because they might be asked to contribute at any time. To maximise this, I:
Final Thoughts: Warm Routines Build Brave Learners Cold calling is not about putting kids on the spot. It’s about building a culture where everyone’s thinking is valued, where participation is the norm, and where learning is a team effort. When used with warmth, care, and intention, cold calling becomes a practice of inclusion, not pressure. My #1 Tip for Teachers: Start by cold calling during low-stakes questions and combine it with routines like whiteboards or think-pair-shares. Over time, it’ll feel natural, expected, and safe. Want to explore more ways to check for understanding or build equitable participation? Reach out! I love helping teachers build classrooms where everyone’s voice is part of the learning.  Image created with AI Education in Victoria is experiencing an exciting shift with the launch of the Victorian Teaching and Learning Model 2.0. This significant update incorporates elements of learning and teaching including an emphasis on Cognitive Load Theory and explicit instruction. The current education minister's active engagement, including attending professional learning sessions and mandating phonemic awareness and phonics in F-2 classes, marks a significant departure from past years when such topics received little attention. Reflecting on my own experiences, four years ago I participated in a department-sponsored professional learning course where phonics was merely an elective. At the course's conclusion, my school’s efforts in implementing a systematic synthetic phonics program were dismissed by the facilitator: the exact words were “We’ll just have to agree to disagree”. Two years ago, any mention of literacy and numeracy was notably absent from the then minister’s remarks at the Victorian Educational Excellence Awards. During another year-long program, decodable readers were described as "contrived". Less than six months ago, another department funded PL the need for and importance of explicit teaching was being dismissed. While hopeful about the impact of new initiative, these experiences underscore the significant work still needed to support educators in navigating change effectively. I have now helped lead my last three schools through significant change. I know that it is not a simple process, but our students are absolutely worth the effort it takes to ensure our teaching is as effective as possible. Change Takes TimeAlthough it is tempting to expect change to happen immediately, the reality is that it is a gradual process. This can be frustrating as every day we have a cohort of learners in front of us and we want the best learning experience for them TODAY. However, if we want the change to be substantive and meaningful then we need to take the time to ensure we do it effectively. It will take time to develop the knowledge of many leaders and teachers within our system. This new model challenges some of the ideas that were presented as truths during my initial teacher education, and I have no doubt that many colleagues will find some of these challenging. It will take time to access professional learning, explore these ideas, and understand how to implement these effectively. The length of time taken to embed meaningful change is compounded by how stretched and overworked teachers already are. Our workloads tend to be massive, and having time to learn about new approaches often has to compete with a myriad of other things such as our day-to-day planning, assessment, reporting, managing behaviour, communicating with families, organising excursions and extracurricular activities… the list goes on. Our time is our most precious resource in education. We need to make sure that we spend it wisely. Set the PriorityBecause our time is finite, prioritisation is essential. Teachers are stretched thin and often overwhelmed, raising the question of how we can be expected to adopt new practices while managing our current responsibilities. It is vital that any new initiatives are clearly prioritised, ensuring that educators are not inundated with conflicting demands. Schools should focus on a very limited number of goals, allowing teachers to engage deeply without feeling overwhelmed. Unfortunately, schools are complex places which generally means that there are a number of issues that compete to be a priority. It is too easy to get caught up in a new trend, or to spend too much time on things that only have a small impact on the education of our children. We should be critically assessing what our goals are and whether they will have a significant effect on our core business of teaching and learning. The Power of AlignmentIn order to maximise our impact and our time, we need to ensure our priorities are aligned. When our teaching practices, curricula, assessments, and professional development all point in the same direction, we significantly enhance our potential for success. Too often competing priorities can end up with schools working at cross purposes. This is why it is exciting that the Victorian Teaching & Learning Model 2.0 highlights how we learn. This means that we are better positioned to ensure alignment by checking that our understandings are consistent across subjects and domains. A great example of this is evident in how explicit teaching is a core aspect of not only English and Mathematics, but also School-wide Positive Behaviour Support. This means that schools could align their priorities by focusing on ‘explicit teaching’ so that all staff are heading in the same direction. The Role of PruningIt’s not enough just to make sure that we are aligned with our priorities. Because time is such a critical factor, we also need to stop doing things as well. We have to evaluate and ‘prune’ non-essential tasks that do not contribute to our core objectives. Just as a gardener removes excess growth to promote flourishing blooms, we should identify activities that divert time and energy from impactful work. Streamlining efforts frees up time for professional development, collaboration, and focusing on teaching. Sometimes the pruning we need to do is obvious and we get trim things that we are happy to see go. The harder task is in identifying practices that may be nice to do, but get in the way of the ones that are essential. Meaningful change in education is a complex and multifaceted journey that requires intentional prioritisation, alignment of goals, and the courage to let go of non-essential tasks. With patience and commitment, we can continue to create thriving educational environments that support our students. 5 Tips for ChangePrioritise Reflect on your current practices and identify one core priority that will drive change in your school. Align Ensure that there is consistency in priorities across the school. Focus first on techniques or methods that are transferable, such as explicit instruction, or checking for understanding. Prune Identify tasks or routines that are "nice-to-do" but don’t significantly impact student learning outcomes. Gradually phase these out to free up time for high-impact strategies that align with school priorities. Engage Actively seek out professional learning opportunities to deepen understanding and application in the classroom. There is so much great PL already available through sources like Think Forward Educators, Sharing Best Practice or What Works Series. Collaborate We are fortunate that we schools have amazing expertise within them. Work together with colleagues to share insights and strategies, visit each others classrooms and lean on each other.  Image created by AI Professional development (PD) is part and parcel of being a teacher. Ongoing professional learning aims to enhance teacher practice and ultimately improve student outcomes. It is seen as such an integral part of teaching that it is mandatory for me to complete at least 20 hours each year in order for me to maintain my teacher registration. Of course, PD is essential. It upskills teachers, provides space for critical reflection, creates cohesion and can benefit our students. It is important for schools to allocate time, resources and expertise for positive PD. Unfortunately, for the amount of time and money we spend on PD, a lot of it doesn't really have much impact. Too often it doesn't improve our practice, it doesn't provide us with new knowledge, and it fails to have an effect on our students. There are three things in particular that cause PD to be ineffective:
IrrelevanceThe first issue with PD is that it is often irrelevant to the participants' specific roles. How many times have you found yourself in a PD session, wondering why you were there in the first place? Imagine an art teacher sitting through a PD about the new science curriculum—while it may not be a poorly delivered session, its content doesn’t directly apply to their daily work. If the material doesn’t connect to our role, the potential for a positive impact is minimal. Schools need to carefully consider who should attend particular PD sessions. Our time as educators is incredibly valuable, and wasting it on irrelevant training can be frustrating and demoralizing. There are also times when the PD might actually be relevant, but the participants don’t perceive it as such. When teachers believe a PD session doesn't apply to them, it leads to disengagement. This is why it's crucial to establish and communicate clear reasons why a teacher will benefit from attending any given PD. When we understand the purpose and how it connects to our role, we’re far more likely to engage meaningfully. Otherwise, the perception of irrelevance can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where we go through the motions without taking anything away from the experience. Even if the content is relevant, the timing of the PD can greatly affect its effectiveness. For example, a workshop on establishing classroom routines will be far more impactful if held at the start of the school year rather than during Term 4. By then, routines are already set (or not), and the opportunity to implement the strategies is minimal. In this case, the PD may be excellent in terms of content, but its impact is diminished because it wasn’t offered when teachers needed it most. Thoughtful timing is as essential as relevant content in maximizing the benefits of PD, otherwise it can render it irrelevant. ImpracticalityPD often fails when it fails to provide teachers with practical, actionable strategies that we can immediately implement in our classrooms. When PD focuses too much on theory and abstract concepts, with little consideration given to the day-to-day realities of teaching, we leave sessions with a lot of ideas but no clear understanding of how to apply them in their unique contexts. This disconnect between theory and practice means that the potential for lasting change in teaching practice is low. Conversely, PD sessions sometimes overload us with too many new strategies at once, without providing sufficient follow-up support or time for reflection. Learning a new teaching method or tool takes time, and without the opportunity to practice, reflect, and refine it, it's unlikely to take last. PD that delivers too much content all at once leaves us feeling overwhelmed and more likely to abandon the new strategies altogether. In order to get this mix right, we need PD that offers teachers the opportunity to actively practice the techniques we are learning. Practicing new strategies during PD allows us to refine our approach, address challenges, and gain confidence before implementing them with students.It also gives us the opportunity to receive (kind) feedback from peers, before we get feedback from our students. IsolationPD fails to be beneficial when it occurs in isolation, disconnected from the broader context of a our daily responsibilities and our school's overall objectives. When PD is treated as a standalone event, it becomes difficult for us to carry the new ideas back into our classrooms in any sustainable or impactful way. Without a sense of continuity, the knowledge or strategies gained during the session can feel abstract, leaving us unsure of how to effectively integrate them into our existing practices. This "one and done" approach to PD limits its long-term value and potential impact on student outcomes.
PD too often lacks the follow-up and support necessary for us to truly embed new learnings, skills, and techniques. Effective professional learning should be a continuous process, integrated into the school's culture, where teachers receive regular feedback and have opportunities to revisit and refine what they’ve learned. Without ongoing support, the new strategies introduced in PD risk being forgotten or half-heartedly implemented. By embedding PD into a culture of collaboration and sustained practice, schools can create an environment where professional growth is ongoing, and the benefits of PD extend well beyond the initial session. Overall, professional development is essential for ensuring that teachers remain effective, engaged, and empowered in their roles, ultimately benefiting their students and the education system as a whole. When you visit a dentist, you expect to receive treatment which reflects best practice. When you employ an architect, you expect their designs to meet all the current regulations. Chiropractors must adhere to government mandates. And when you visit a doctor, you expect them to follow stringent guidelines to cure your ailment. Why should teaching be different to these other professions? The ideal of 'teacher autonomy' is a pervasive one. It is evident in statements about individual teachers being the ones best able to meet their students' needs. It exists in the dismissal of experts in other fields "who wouldn't understand because they're not teachers". It is seen through the belief that the pedagogical knowledge of an individual trumps the collective wisdom of research. Idolisation of teacher autonomy is not only pervasive; it can be deeply unhelpful to our profession. The idea that an individual teacher is the one best placed to meet their students' needs is a seductive one. It can be seen in recruitment campaigns to "be that teacher". But what happens if you are not meeting the needs of a child? The premise of teacher autonomy has now placed that individual teacher to blame. I think about the number of newly qualified teachers who leave the profession and wonder how many leave because they have been overwhelmed with too much choice. Teacher autonomy also leads to the idea that we can not use resources that have been prepared by somebody else. This wastes countless hours of teachers and burdens them with an unnecessary workload. The reality is that teachers need to draw on our collective experience and wisdom. We need to support each other. Of course, children are unique, but this is an argument to uphold one another, not to be left to flounder in freedom. Teacher autonomy is an unhelpful seduction because it inadvertently isolates us from our colleagues. When we go to our GP, we are not surprised when we get a referral to a physio, or a psychologist, or told to get a blood test, so the pathologist can have a look. Health professionals work with each other to provide what an individual needs. Why then do we ignore (or even belittle) the advice of experts from other fields? Of course, we specialise in education but, given the complexity of children, we need to be willing to accept assistance and wisdom from other fields. This cannot be only when we ask for it, because that is not a healthy relationship. Teacher autonomy is an unhelpful seduction because it isolates us from other professions. Teacher autonomy enables teachers to self-select their own standards of evidence. This sounds enticing, but it allows for the anything to be considered acceptable research. A perfect example of this is the seemingly endless debates that exist around reading. The US's National Reading Panel (2000), Australia's Rowe Report (2005), and the UK's Rose Report (2006) all had similar findings that systematic phonics is essential for reading. Yet, the debate rages on because teachers are empowered to put ideology over evidence under the guise of 'autonomy'. If a doctor, dentist, or architect used their personal beliefs to ignore the evidence-backed guidelines, it would be called 'malpractice'. Teacher autonomy is an unhelpful seduction because it isolates us from implementing best practice. Teaching is the most noble profession. We are entrusted with the care and nurturing of children. It is our mission to enrich the lives of our students and teach the new concepts, help them master new skills, and learn how to be active participants in our world. Of course, teachers still need choice, but it cannot be unrestricted. Teachers still need voice, but we must also respect the wisdom of others. Teachers still get to rejoice as we enable strong research evidence to become embedded practice. Let's stop making the ideal of teacher autonomy into a false ideal so that we can collectively create a strong education for every child.  Photo by Sven Mieke on Unsplash To the attention of the Australian Education Union Victorian Branch, I am deeply appalled, devastated and hurt by the statement passed unanimously by the joint Primary and Secondary Sector Council on the 14th of June, 2024. As a passionate advocate for public education and a long-time member of the union I am puzzled by the stance put forward because it fails to support equality in education, downplays the importance of phonics in learning to read, and dismisses the hard work many members are already doing in their schools while increasing our workload. I am deeply appalled that the AEU Vic fails to recognize the huge leap that the Minister’s announcement at the Age Education Summit is for equality in Victoria. Literacy is a social justice issue. Every child, regardless of background, has the right to be literate. While I applaud the AEU’s advocacy around school funding, I am appalled that the union is objecting to a move to make literacy education equitable. Victoria may be leading the other states in our NAPLAN results for reading, but still 1 in 4 students in Grade 3 fail to be proficient readers. This situation is worse for our disadvantaged, regional, rural and First Nations students. This is not an acceptable situation and the union should be actively supporting moves to change this. Ensuring that phonics is taught in all schools is the biggest lever that education can pull to achieve equity in our state. I am devastated that the union has downplayed the importance of phonics in early reading. The willfully misleading phrase “that a range of teaching strategies to teach reading, including phonics” does not demonstrate a sound knowledge of critical importance of teaching phonics to all students. The National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy was conducted almost 20 years ago and clearly articulated the need for systematic phonics instruction, as the Minister is finally advocating. English is a morphophonemic language and all students need to be taught how to unlock the code that is written English. Early systematic, synthetic phonics is essential for all students. The Minister should be applauded for finally embracing this crucial aspect, not subjected to unfounded criticism for “a lack of understanding”. I personally witnessed the Minister engage with Professional Learning on early literacy, handwriting his own notes, staying for several hours after his address, and consulting with a wide range of teachers, principals and other educators during the breaks. The union should be applauding that we finally have a Minister FOR Education in the Education State. I am deeply hurt by the stance that the union has taken because it dismisses and disrespects the hard work that I, alongside many other teachers, have put into creating change for our students and in supporting teachers. I have introduced the explicit teaching of systematic phonics in multiple schools. Often this work has not been supported by the broader department and yet I, and many other members, have persevered- attending PL outside of contracted hours. A key piece of feedback from the teachers I support has been how much this approach has reduced their workload. Providing high-quality instructional resources results in teachers having a decreased burden in their workload. The union keeps highlighting this is the number one issue for their members. Why is the union objecting to a key reform that will alleviate the burden of workload from its members? Instead, the union has taken a stance that drives a wedge between teachers. I now do not feel supported, or even respected, by the union that is meant to stand with me in solidarity. It should also be noted that this reform will not only ease the burden of our early years teachers. Differentiating for the broad range of students’ abilities adds hugely to teachers’ workloads. Often this stems from poor instruction (typified by whole language or balanced literacy) in the early years that leads to our significant number of students not being able to read at a proficient level. This reform seeks to finally address this issue in a meaningful way. How does the union propose to reconcile the sense of appall, devastation and profound hurt that I, a loyal member and proud public teacher, feel in this statement against these reforms? These reforms have the potential to make a profound difference in not only our students lives, but also the wellbeing and professionalism of our teachers. I am carefully considering my future as a member of the Australian Education Union- Victoria Branch Yours in hopeful future solidarity, Edit: The AEU Vic Branch's statement can be found here  |
I'm JamesI have been teaching for over a decade in Australia. I have worked as a classroom teacher, lead teacher, learning specialist, and principal. Archives
April 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed