1 20 Years of the Same Trend

Over the last 20 years, working as a teacher in the Victorian Education System, I’ve noticed a significant increase in the belittling of teachers. This has come from politicians, as one might expect, but also form an unexpected source: that of academia. John Hattie’s work is an insightful case study of how this occurs. In this chapter, I will examine his claims and how they support the broader agenda of accountability within education that continues to be present. In addition, the promotion of “evidence-based education” (EBE) and the resultant decrease in teacher autonomy, which has stifled democracy in schools and disempowered teachers, is examined. In the last 15 years there has been a significant shift towards EBE, but it is important to note that only particular meanings for the term “evidence” are promoted (Simpson, 2019a, 2019b). This is the narrow “evidence” such as that presented by John Hattie and the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and that generated via their preferred methodology, the meta-meta-analysis. This article will also raise some doubts about this method. Finally, there will also be a discussion of policy entrepreneurs, those academics who push an agenda appealing to those in power and happily cloak it in the shoddy look-a-like robes of the academy, often despite that very academy criticizing that position.

2 Why Focus on Hattie?

Both the New South Wales (NSW) and Victorian (Vic) educational systems have used Hattie’s claims to direct their pedagogical approaches. This is not surprising. Hattie’s work has been influential in Denmark (Knudsen, 2017), Norway (Imsen, 2011) and initially gained a foothold in New Zealand before being openly challenged by their Union (O’Neill et al., 2016). Hattie’s work has been so influential because it suits educational administrators and policymakers. Yet, Hattie’s claims are rarely questioned or analysed within those systems and further, systems of accountability have been set up to ensure compliance (Wescott, 2022). There is a large body of academic critique of Hattie’s work that is not being considered by school leaders and not being promoted to teachers and parents. My hope is reflected in my colleague Pauline’s words, who noted: “our kids deserve better than this”.

From an international perspective, there are also good reasons to focus on Hattie, e.g. Professor Gunn Imsen who writes

The Hattie fever is held by equally keen politicians, municipal bureaucrats and leaders who strive to achieve quantitative results in their target management systems, which are part of a paper mill that is stifling school in Norway. The best medicine against the fever is that Norwegian teachers take back the faith in themselves, their own judgment and trust in their own skills in the work of good teaching for the students. And that the school authorities support them in this. (Imsen, 2011)

I will suggest ways that this faith and trust can be rebuilt, with examples from Australia.

3 How Has the “Evidence” Base Usurped Teacher Expertise and Agency in Australia?

While one might argue that Hattie is only one individual, and the Educational Endowment Fund (EEF) has limited influence over Australia, this suggestion belies the powerful influence they have over Australian educational policy. John Hattie is the current Chair of the powerful Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL)1 and is also the author of the highly influential book Visible Learning (VL).2 The EEF3 is an independent charity with a £125 m founding grant from the Department for Education in England; it also has an Australian link, The Evidence for Learning (E4L)4 organisation. Also, recently, Sir Kevan Collins, former Founding CEO of England’s EEF, was appointed to the board of the newly formed Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO).5 AERO is funded through an initial investment of $50 million over three years by the Australian Commonwealth and the combined states and territories. Collins’ appointment is concerning as it is another indication that this narrow band of evidence, from the meta-meta-analysis methodology, will continue to dominate Australian education. Collins has been outspoken about the value of teacher expertise. His criticism will be discussed below.

Visible Learning has significantly influenced Education Policy in Australia. For example, both the Victorian and New South Wales (NSW) Education Departments have mandated classroom practices based on the findings presented in Hattie’s book. Victoria has defined the “10 High Impact Teaching Strategies (HITS)”6 and NSW the 8 “What Works Best”7 publications. The 10 HITS are: Goal Setting; Feedback; Worked Examples; Multiple Exposures; Explicit Teaching; Questioning; Meta-Cognitive Strategies; Structuring Lessons; Collaborative Learning; and Differentiated Teaching. The 8 “What Works Best” are: High expectations; Explicit teaching; Effective feedback; Use of data to inform practice; Assessment; Classroom Management; Well-being; and Collaboration.

At a policy level, the HITS are a key component of the Victorian Teaching and Learning Model (VTLM) 8 and there are accountability systems via classroom observations, annual student, parent and staff surveys and teacher performance reviews which mandate school leaders and teachers to take School wide approaches using the HITS. In Victoria, most schools have a middle and upper leadership groups consisting of: Curriculum Leader, Learning Specialist, Assistant Principal and Principal who are heavily trained in the HITS. In the many professional development sessions I have attended, I’ve never heard one of these school leaders question or critique the evidence that the HITS are based on, nor engage with the research that does so. One of the goals of Australian schooling is to develop analytic and critical skills in students—yet this attribute appears lacking among school leaders!

The reason for this anomaly is that at a teacher and school level in Victoria, power has become more hierarchical and the VTLM has been imposed from above. Consequently, leaders who openly critique and question this are putting their future promotion opportunities at risk. I’ve heard many leaders question the VTLM in private and also when they leave the system (Westcott, 2022). This suggests that groupthink continues to be a major problem in the education system.

4 Instructional Models Guiding Teaching Practice

There has also been a move towards each school using a specific instructional model, leading to codified lesson plans. There are a number of instructional models (e.g. GANAG9 from Marzano et al., 2001). Buckley Park College, a school within Metropolitan Melbourne is typical in the guidance it provides to teachers:

Use of our instructional framework to guide classroom practice is a non-negotiable commitment of teaching at our school…The Instructional Framework is our explicit, common model of instruction...The model is based on well researched high yield instructional strategies described in “Classroom Instruction That Works” (Marzano et al.‚2001) and “Visible Learning” (John Hattie).10

This local example shows the level of commitment to these ideas, where it is enshrined in policy as a means to ensure some level of teacher compliance. Although, personal feedback from teachers indicates that the compliance is largely tokenistic and not helpful in improving their teaching. In other words, it is performative.

At a school level, my experience has seen a shift from promoting good teachers and teaching within the school to promoting these HITS. This is probably because school leaders are time poor, and it is easier to use the HITS “off the shelf”. For example, at my school, at the end of the year, teachers used to be given time to run sample lessons to other staff. Being a Mathematics teacher, I found this extremely helpful. For a start, I was able to see the practice of great teachers in my school of whom I was not aware. Also, I saw details of how teachers in different areas designed their lessons. This fostered collaboration and a celebration of good teaching, which in turn created a positive climate in the school.

However, since the HITS were implemented in 2017, these sessions were cancelled and instead, there is now a focus on staff using one instructional model and specific types of lesson plans. Instead of creative and professional examples and dialogue, staff instead make short presentations about how they have used the HITS in their yearly work. The standardisation of an instructional model and a lesson plan removes the diversity of teaching that I saw in those staff presentations pre-2017. This has not improved collaboration nor celebrated good teaching and mine and others’ morale has declined. I think the important question here is whether or not it has improved teaching and learning? Is there any evidence of this?

The HITS dominate the area of research for schools in Victoria and New South Wales and have subtly taken the focus away from emerging research. An example is the evidence now being promoted for Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), which is largely invisible to most teachers in the Victorian system. While the New South Wales Education Department is now promoting CLT, a reasonable question is why CLT is not listed as one of their “What Works Best” strategies? Also, the Victorian Education Department currently makes no mention of CLT despite it being among the premiere research-informed findings to date.

5 Victoria’s Middle Years Literacy and Numeracy Support (MYLNS) Initiative

Related to this is the Victorian Education Department’s largest project so far. This is the Middle Years Literacy and Numeracy Support (MYLNS) initiative. This initiative is the largest fiscal investment in the upskilling of teachers to support those students “below minimum standard” on the nations National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, in both Literacy and Numeracy. Initially, eight Professional development days were provided for hundreds of teachers. I was the numeracy representative from my school and was disappointed that the focus in the 3 introductory days was on Hattie’s evidence, the Australian arm of EEF, E4L and a range of the HITS. I felt that this evidence was far too general and overlooked the complexity of different faculties, pedagogies and approaches. There was no mention of CLT in the groups I was involved in to improve numeracy. Also, the overwhelming feedback from teachers was that more specific and detailed strategies to improve numeracy in students was needed.

One of the most relevant problems I’ve had in mathematics classes related to MYLNS, is that often students don’t ask questions to clarify a concept just taught. In the 8 MYLNS professional days that I attended, this was never addressed. The most useful research that I found on this was not with MYLNS nor the Department’s website, but via a podcast by Lovell with Aaron Peters, who was completing his PhD on “Why Students don’t ask for Help when they need it” (Lovell, 2019).

Another concern is that, despite significant peer review critique, VL has been promoted by politicians and Education Departments as the authoritative work on pedagogy. An example of the issues that many academics have with this are

Under the surveillance of Visible Learning, teachers are not experts unless they subscribe to Visible Learning; they are no longer autonomous, but must comply rather than form their own judgements, and implementation is more important than concern. (McKnight & Whitburn, 2018, p. 13)

Gert Biesta was prophetic in warning of the demise of teacher agency and professional judgement, as a result of the “evidence-based” agenda promoting particular forms of evidence to play a governing role in teacher practice. Biesta goes as far as saying, this is a form of “totalitarianism” (2010, pp. 491–492). Biesta later argued that particular forms of evidence lead to a policing which narrows the professional development spaces for teachers (2015, p. 82). In my experience, this is exactly what has happened in my State and likely other systems where these ideas take hold.

6 Why Does Hattie’s Evidence Dominate in Australia Rather Than Evidence from Other Reputable Organisations?

This is a strange state of affairs. Despite its limited presentation of evidence, and concerns about the value of its methodology, there is little doubt that Hattie continues to dominate educational discourse. Scott Eacott ascribes this as the “cult of the guru”. This gives an accurate reason for Hattie’s dominance: “Hattie’s work has provided school leaders with data that appeal to their administrative pursuits” (Eacott, 2017, p. 3). This is a position shared by other researchers, too:

In speaking to teachers, we have found that many have concerns that are similar to ours, but that they are silenced by senior staff in their schools, who have hitched their own branding to particular bandwagons. (McKnight & Whitburn, 2018, p. 20)

I think that Hattie’s claim that reducing class size is a “disaster” (Hattie, 2005) is what originally made him popular among school administrators. I’ve worked for a number of years as a timetabler for schools and, for me, Eacott’s reasoning rings true. Hattie’s work was often quoted to me by leaders to justify large class sizes, despite teacher’s experience that smaller class sizes improve their ability to teach.

Another concern about the deprofessionalisation of teachers relates to teachers’ professional development, and their ability to select learning that suits their needs. Even here, Hattie is a dominant influence. Rather than a democratic process, PD and meetings in schools are normally run by a small group of leaders, who have already decided agendas and curriculum, usually based on the VTLM8, before meeting with staff. In my experience, there is little consultation or democratic process, confirming McKnight and Whitburn’s concerns. The same is true beyond the school level: I have been to state-wide PD, run by Assistant Principals who promote Hattie ad nauseam, while referring to VL as “the bible”. This means that teachers are limited in their exposure to other teaching and learning ideas, which ultimately makes the focus on Hattie to be self-reinforcing.

7 Concerns About Hattie and the Meta-Meta-Analysis Methodology

It is important to remember that there is much concern regarding the validity of the findings presented in VL (Westcott, 2022). Hattie relies heavily on a meta-meta-analysis, as does the EEF. However, many researchers are sceptical of the value of this analysis, or the purpose to which it has been put, most recently in a Special Edition of Educational Research & Evaluation. I was concerned that there did not seem to be an easy way for teachers and parents to access the critical peer review of Hattie. So, I decided to find and summarise as much of the peer review as possible, and put it in a place easily accessed by teachers and parents. I have collected over 50 peer-reviewed articles, detailing a litany of misrepresentations, calculation errors and methodologic flaws in VL11. Teachers, academics and school leaders should access this resource when they find the ideas of John Hattie, or those of the EEF emerging in their settings in order to be conversant, at the very least, with the criticisms of Hattie’s research.

8 Standardisation and Accountability

I started teaching in the Victorian Education System in 1980; at that time, there was flexibility for me to design the curriculum for the students I taught. I was a Mathematics and Physical Education teacher and by the late 1980s, Year 12 Physical Education (PE) was introduced into the Victorian System. Under general guidelines, I had to develop the Year 12 PE course myself. This flexibility changed in the 1990s when a more specific curriculum was defined by the State’s Educational Authorities. Teachers were offered input, but my colleagues and I always believed this was tokenistic. Later, a clear example was the introduction of Graphics Calculators into Year 11 and 12 maths. My experience was that this was mostly against teachers’ wishes. In 2009, all Australia states have since then agreed to a standardised national curriculum12.

This speaks to another major theme within the realm of Eacott’s “administrative pursuits” (2017) which is the promotion of standardisation and accountability. This takes numerous forms, including curricular ones. The implementation of the HITS and the 8 “What Works Best” is also a huge step towards a nationally standardised pedagogy, once again, decreasing the input from teachers and reducing their agency.

The key accountability tools are the two standardised testing regimes of The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and The National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). These also dominate policy direction as identified by the former Australian Federal Minister of Education, Alan Tudge who noted, “We must protect NAPLAN, and not give in to those who call for less accountability and less information for teachers and parents” (Tudge, 2021).

Alan Reid (2019) details that many of the items in the NAPLAN and PISA tests are not valid, and questions the use of invalid tests for accountability. He also details the rise of the neoliberal agenda in Australia and how these tests promote that agenda, in particular, the reduction of democratic values leading to a demise of teacher and student agency. Ladwig (2019) concurs, saying that accountability is centrally developed and deployed via the least expensive forms, like NAPLAN and that the national curriculum and the standardised testing of PISA and NAPLAN which work against teachers’ professional judgement further disempowering them. Daliri-Ngametua & Hardy (2022) give detailed examples of the myopic focus on NAPLAN enforced on Queensland teachers. They describe teachers as “demoralized”, “devalued”, “conscientious objectors”, and “doing without believing”, resulting in a “personal and professional dissonance” which comes at a very real and practical cost.

The power of teachers to have input into their profession has been reduced significantly. As described above, teachers have moved from creators of curriculum to possible consultors about that curriculum. This motivated an initiative from the Australian Education Union (AEU) Victorian branch, who brought together a number of teachers to create a detailed policy initiative. In their preamble, they state: “Reclaiming the central role of teachers in schooling demands that teachers are at the centre of curriculum development”. This must be a key focus of all AEU members in enacting this policy.

Continuing the trend, I’ve noted within my own teaching career they continue:

Government policies over time (particularly those informed by the managerialist notions of teachers as “rowers not steerers”) have diminished this role, marginalising the proper role and active involvement of teachers in the range of curriculum processes and undermining their professional autonomy. (AEU, 2019, p. 1)

This policy echoes my suggested actions below that teachers and school leaders must have the key role in the development, implementation and review of the curriculum.

9 The Explicit Diminishing of Teachers’ Knowledge and Evidence: John Hattie

As stated above, there are legitimate concerns about Hattie’s methodology which he uses as the basis for his research. There are also concerns about the way his strategies have been implemented in schools and systems in NSW and Victoria. However, perhaps the most concerning aspect is how Hattie, and those of like mind, are so critical of the teaching profession. Hattie is dismissive about teachers’ expertise in the classroom. For more than 10 years, a commonly cited comment of his has been used to limit the validity of teachers’ experiences: “Statements without evidence are just opinions” (Hattie, in Evans, 2012, p. 1). This statement has a number of problems. Firstly, this belittles teacher expertise and experience, and attempts to raise his so-called evidence and rankings above them. Hattie makes it clear that it was only his narrow band of evidence that was trustworthy; notably, this band excluded teacher expertise and experience. He even goes further, explicitly stating his desire to silence teachers: “Almost every teacher wants to get up and talk about their story, their anecdotes and their classrooms. We will not allow that, because as soon as you allow that, you legitimise every teacher in the room” (Hattie, in Knudsen, 2017, p. 3).

Hattie, like other policy entrepreneurs, is not alone in his desire to belittle teachers. Rose and Eriksson-Lee quote an even more provocative slogan from Kevan Collins (mentioned above), former Chief Executive of the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF): “if you’re not using evidence to inform your decisions, you must be using prejudice” (Rose & Eriksson-Lee, 2017, p. 3). Hattie’s doubts about the expertise of teachers are clear in statements like this: “When teachers claim that they are having a positive effect on achievement or when a policy improves achievement, this is almost always a trivial claim: Virtually everything works. One only needs a pulse and we can improve achievement” (Hattie, 2009, p. 16). This was perhaps the most derogatory statement about teachers that I’ve ever heard; in some ways, it is absurd that somebody so scathing of teachers can be in any position of authority, yet the rise in popularity of Hattie, particularly with politicians and school leaders, has meant these ideas have spread unchallenged.

10 Ways to Challenge These Ideas

Much like Hattie’s other claims, the idea that “Virtually everything works” is easily challenged—and that even applies to some of Hattie’s own favoured techniques! For example, Wiliam (2014) and Nielsen and Klitmøller (2017) highlight Hattie’s own reports demonstrate that 38% of studies show feedback Does NOT work! Teachers need to dispute Hattie’s claim, “One only needs a pulse” by investigating whether “Virtually everything works”, and speaking back to academics like Hattie and empowering one another to do the same.

Another way to challenge these ideas is to look at the detail of the meta-analysis Hattie cites. As shown with the example of feedback above, a significant number of studies report negative effect sizes for most of the influences Hattie details. In other words, a lot of interventions do not work—or at least do not work all the time, or in all contexts! My own example was using Hattie’s highest impact strategy from VL, “self-report grades”. Hattie claimed that students merely predicting their grade somehow magically accelerated their learning by 3 years! (Hattie, 2009). The result with my Year 12 students was that this did not work. In fact, I found the opposite effect among overconfident students, who predicted a grade of A but barely passed with a D.

Another way to challenge these ideas is to contrast the work of other reputable evidence organisations. For example, the largest educational evidence organisation is the USA’s What Works Clearing House (WWC), who report the opposite of Hattie, that there is not good evidence for most educational interventions. The significance of this led Daniel Willingham (2018) to joke, that they should change their name to “The What Does NOT Work Clearing House”. So if we were to use the WWC evidence base instead of Hattie’s, we could easily argue that educational evidence of this type is currently contradictory and poor. But if we challenged and put aside Hattie’s findings, what would be left behind to replace them? The answer is simple, yet revolutionary: we would need to rely on teacher judgement, experience, expertise and agency!

The rise of these challenges to some of his claims has recently caused Hattie to retreat, noting, “Most things that a teacher could do in a classroom ‘sorta’ work…” (Hattie & Hamilton, 2020, p. 3). I don’t think “sorta” is part of the EBE jargon and contrary to Hattie’s claim in VL that the evidence is clear and that it is possible to find “what works best”. This suggests, strongly, that through teacher, grassroots as well as academic pressure, those pushing these ideas beyond and besides teachers can have an impact, more ideas of how individuals can support these ideas will be pursued later.

11 It’s More Complicated Than That!

Teachers need to be always sceptical of simplistic claims that this or that strategy is proven by evidence, largely because there are many variables in Schooling. The example above of my use of Hattie’s top strategy of “self-report grades” showed no understanding nor account of my students’ motivations, previous learning, personality, interest and home life. Fortunately, I have a great deal of expertise and knowledge around these things, and this fact should not be allowed to be diminished by entrepreneurs of the type outlined here. Hattie’s claim that you can separate all this complexity into precise individual influences, then via effect sizes, determine “what works best” is wrong and misleading (Slavin, 2018).

Biesta concurs, “…we have not yet conducted sufficient research in order to be able to encapsulate all factors, aspects and dimensions that make up the reality of education” (Biesta, 2010, p. 494). Biesta notes that there is more to education than just academic achievement and also the complexity of teaching requires teacher judgement. Instead, a narrow focus on academic achievement inevitably leads to “the erosion of responsible, accountable and democratic professionalism” (Biesta, 2015, p. 82). Dr Ben Goldacre (2016) concurs, “I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that”.

Also, focusing on the aims of schooling will reveal that complexity (Reid, 2019). A scan of the aims of the various Educational systems around the world is enlightening. For example, my educational authority in Victoria defines three aims of Schooling—Improving Achievement, Engagement and Well-being. The narrow focus on NAPLAN, PISA and VL ignores and neglects the valuable work teachers do in trying to improve engagement and well-being. Teacher organisations should promote examples of what teachers do to improve engagement and well-being.

12 Teacher Effects Versus System Effects

How much do teachers matter? The focus on individual teachers and their unique approaches and practices has diminished during my career. Instead, the focus is on a standardised view of teaching and learning; that is, a “one size fits all” approach.

A look at one of the major themes from Hattie’s work, teacher effects versus system effects, gives us some explanation for why this might be the case. In VL, Hattie argues “Teaching” (direct instruction, feedback, etc.) has an effect size more than eight times larger than “Working Conditions” (class size, adding more finances, etc.) (Hattie, 2009, p. 244). In his controversial document with the multinational company, Pearson, “What Does Not Work in Education: The politics of Distraction” (Hattie, 2015), Hattie continues this argument about teacher effects versus system effects and names, among other system aspects, school autonomy, funding, class size, buildings, welfare and transformational leadership as “distractions” (pp. 25–27). This juxtaposition shows clearly why Hattie’s claims suit educational administrators. But why would it diminish teacher agency? Larsen, in his critique of Hattie gives us some clues, “Teachers get identified as the primary and indispensable learning factor and thereby as a public, expensive, and untrustworthy potential enemy. This amounts to scapegoat projection par excellence…” (Larsen, 2015, p. 11).

In my experience, it is this notion of the teacher being an “untrustworthy potential enemy” that is a significant reason for the increase in standardisation, accountability systems and measurements, that has stifled teacher agency and judgement.

Hattie’s juxtaposition has been promoted and endorsed by many principals and education department bureaucrats during their presentations. This is mostly done by presenting Hattie’s graphic (below) to argue that the focus of schooling should be on the teacher and not on system aspects. Also, this is used to justify the increased standardisation and accountability measures. Hattie’s graphic (Fig. 1) displays that teachers’ account for 30% of the effect on student achievement. Hattie stated that, “There have been many studies over the past few years that have asked this question about wherein lies the variance. Most have been conducted using Hierarchical Linear Modelling…” (Hattie, 2003, p. 1). But Hattie gives no specific reference to check this 30% figure and he displays this graphic in many of his presentations (Hattie, 2003, p. 3).

Fig. 1
A three dimensional pie chart that represents variance on student achievement in percentage. Students, 50. Teachers, 30. Home, 5. Peers, 5. Schools, 5. Principal, 5.

Percentage of variance on student achievement

Full size image

Not all researchers agree with Hattie’s claim. For example, Sahlberg and Bower make a totally different claim with totally different evidence, citing 1–14% compared to Hattie’s 30% claim. They write:

Research on what explains students’ measured performance in school remains mixed. However, researchers generally agree that up to two-thirds of the variation in student achievement is explainable by individual student characteristics like family background and such variables. (Sahlberg & Bower, 2015, online article)

This is to say that most of what explains student achievement is beyond the control of teachers or even schools, so suggesting that teachers are the most important factor in improving the quality of education is simply rather silly.

Hattie’s analysis transforms teachers into both the enemy and the scapegoat. Teachers will be blamed for all of the things that society doesn’t get right. One important consideration is worth noting. One might think that Hattie is criticising the incompetent teacher—but, according to his own words, he’s not. Instead, he’s much more focused on “the average” teacher. He writes: “the devil in this story is not the negative, criminal, and incompetent teacher, but the average, let’s get through the curricula… teacher” (Hattie, 2009, p. 258). This is an amazing criticism of many teachers across Australia—indeed, throughout the world—and represents Hattie’s focus throughout VL. He seems oblivious to systemic and political influences and seems all too eager to focus the blame on the easy target: the teacher. While teaching can always be improved, Hattie’s attack fails on two fronts. Firstly, he seems to think that teachers exist as islands, without pressures from other sources, and secondly, he ignores all the contextual factors that influence teachers and teaching. This constant teacher blaming is a contributor to widespread teacher dissatisfaction.

13 Widespread Teacher Dissatisfaction

As argued above, the focus on evidence-based education in Australia has led to a standardisation of curriculum and pedagogy, which in turn has led to a standardisation of instructional models and even lesson plans. This drive to standardisation removes the complexity of teaching and promotes simplistic check box accountability measures. While this might satisfy bureaucratic demands, it does little to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Below, I provide an example of why this is the case.

At a previous school, I failed a classroom assessment by a senior teacher because I did not write a learning objective on the board. This was a required part of the school’s instructional model. I felt this was unnecessary as the textbook I was working on had a clear heading—“solving simultaneous equations”. I actually used worked examples on the board to solve a number of simultaneous equations. I thought it would be stating the “bleeding obvious” to write on the board, “The aim of the lesson today, if you decide to accept it, is to learn how to solve simultaneous equations, by way of worked examples”. I was confident, in my own experience and knowledge of the students in my class, that they all knew what we were learning. Simply writing it on the board wouldn’t necessarily change that fact. Wescott (2022) gives examples of Victorian teachers with similar experience with the VTLM.

Even more concerningly, the fact that I had developed strong positive relationships, that all the students were engaged, that I knew the material well and tried to introduce it in an interesting and relevant way and then the students gave me positive reviews, went unnoticed. This is a scenario that is repeated in classrooms around Australia every school day. I can only imagine what it does for teacher morale.

These simplistic checklists and standardised approaches seem to focus on what is not done rather than what is done and is another way of belittling teachers. Others have told similar stories, which link all these themes of standardisation, leading to simplistic accountability measures and teacher belittling.

As reported in The Age newspaper, Gabbie Stroud resigned from her teaching position and wrote:

Teaching—good teaching—is both a science and an art. Yet in Australia today [it]… is considered something purely technical and methodical that can be rationalised and weighed. But quality teaching isn’t borne of tiered ‘professional standards’. It cannot be reduced to a formula or discrete parts. It cannot be compartmentalised into boxes and ‘checked off’. Good teaching comes from professionals who are valued. It comes from teachers who know their students, who build relationships, who meet learners at their point of need and who recognise that there’s nothing standard about the journey of learning. We cannot forget the art of teaching—without it, schools become factories, students become products and teachers: nothing more than machinery.13

14 A Call to Action and Support for Those Already Taking Action: Teachers Empowering Themselves and One Another

So, how can one combat this instrumentality, accountability and standardisation regime? In the final section of this chapter, I analyse the field, commenting on current possibilities for action, and suggesting new ones. In Australia, The Australian Education Union has the most power to organise teacher’s voices. The Victorian branch, representing around 50,000 teachers, promoted Teacher Agency as one of its priorities in 2019 and produced a curriculum policy document, designed by its members. The AEU has also lobbied our State Government (AEU, 2019).

14.1 Education Is Empowerment

In addition, the AEU does seek to publish articles that educate teachers. However, this needs to be taken further by challenging the simplistic notions of the “10 High Impact Strategies” and the 8 “What Works Best”, and similar top-down accountability approaches that suck the life out of teaching. Once again, a simple strategy is to promote the many peer reviews that are critical of these simplistic strategies. Also, the AEU needs to take control and coordinate teacher agency and expertise to produce a pedagogy policy document. As explored in [Chapter Empowering Teachers to Know Their Strengths: Not a Silver Bullet But a Golden Goose by Ruth Smith and Lisa Starmer], an approach focused on pedagogical gifts is a strong, robust alternative that shows promise and is appealing to leaders and teachers alike.

14.2 Groups to Join, Groups to Form

The AEU, New South Wales Teachers Federation (NSWTF), Independent Education Union (IEU), Unions around the world and teachers’ associations should also run courses for teachers to learn research methods, particularly the meta-meta-analyses technique which dominates Australian and English Education. Included in these courses should be summaries of the significant peer-review critique of this method. Also, these organisations should promote alternative reputable evidence bases, to serve as a counterpoint to the dominant hegemony within education rhetoric.

In addition, individual teachers have organised groups and forums to take some action. For example, Ollie Lovell has organised the Education Research Reading Room, where he posts podcasts with academics on a variety of issues. He interviewed two leading academics, both of whom are critical voices in the meta-meta-analyses debate (Dylan Wiliam and Adrian Simpson). Steven Kolber and Keith Heggart organised the Teach Meet which was the precursor to this book on teacher empowerment. It brought together a diversity of opinions and experience from all over Australia. Steven also runs Teach Meets in Melbourne regularly covering a host of relevant educational issues and he also runs the #edureading group, attracting teachers worldwide. Each month they read a research paper and reply to pertinent questions on FlipGrid.

Teacher Action groups such as Melbourne Educators for Social and Environmental Justice (MESEJ) run forums on topical issues. Relevant to this debate, they ran a forum—“Teachers Talking Back to Hattie”, which attracted a lot of interest from teachers. Also, the Teacher Education Review (TER) runs regular podcasts providing opinion pieces, analysis and interviews with teachers and academics. TER is part of the broader Australian Educators Online Network, which also has other regular podcasts for teachers (Malcher, 2018).

14.3 Reconsider the Aims of Schooling for Shared Purpose

Reid (2019), Biesta (2015) and Sahlberg and Bower (2015) argue strongly that it has become necessary to revisit the aims of schooling and to challenge the narrow definitions used by Hattie and the EEF. For example, in Victoria, the Education Departments has listed 3 aims—Achievement, Engagement and Well-being. We need to bring back a focus on student engagement and well-being, as well as achievement. As stated above, this would promote the notion that teaching is complex, far more complex than Hattie’s claims portray. This complexity would then allow richer debates about how to improve schooling in Australia and hopefully, challenge the simple checklist accountability systems. We must “Put professional judgement of teachers first or we’ll never get the systemic education improvements we all want” (Ladwig, 2019, online article).

Teachers can write articles for reputable journals. For example, Biesta et al. (2020) confirms many of the issues raised in this article and calls for submissions for the Asia–Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. They identified 8 priorities, which all revolved around reclaiming teacher agency and a more complex examination of teaching (Biesta et al., 2020).

15 Conclusion

I started teaching in the Victorian Education System in 1980. The dominance of this Evidence-Based Education agenda, particularly in the form of John Hattie, over the last 15 years, has been my most significant concern. In my view, this focus has not improved Education in Australia. We need to at least start the debate, make public the critique and then work towards improving our system. Teachers must take a strong role in this.

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.aitsl.edu.au/about-aitsl/directors.

  2. 2.

    Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

  3. 3.

    https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/.

  4. 4.

    https://www.evidenceforlearning.org.au/.

  5. 5.

    https://edresearch.edu.au/about-aero.

  6. 6.

    https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/practice/improve/Pages/hits.aspx.

  7. 7.

    https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/what-works-best.

  8. 8.

    https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/practice/improve/Pages/Victorianteachingandlearningmodel.aspx.

  9. 9.

    https://www.vssec.vic.edu.au/ganag/.

  10. 10.

    https://www.buckleyparkco.vic.edu.au/page/206/BPC-Instructional-Framework.

  11. 11.

    Summary of over 50 peer reviews of VL: https://visablelearning.blogspot.com/p/other-researchers.html.

  12. 12.

    https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/6517/the_australian_curriculum_an_overview_for_parents.pdf.

  13. 13.

    https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/teachers-wellbeing-must-be-a-priority-20160812-gqqsq1.html.