False dichotomies and perspective lobotomies

 ‘What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again;

there is nothing new under the sun.’ Ecclesiastes 1:9

A tired argument has begun patrolling the highways and byways of social media once more: “Low variance” versus “autonomy”. It is partly linked to the incessant yet pointless “explicit teaching” versus “inquiry learning” bickering, alongside outrage in some quarters that explicit teaching has been mandated (it hasn’t). The binary thinking of course is that autonomy is either undoubtedly good or undoubtably bad. Schools or teachers NEED autonomy. Schools or teachers SHOULD NOT HAVE autonomy. Is anyone else utterly bored by this superficial tedium, as if it’s as simple as yes, or no?

In the first instance, individuals will approach this debate differently depending on their view on the purpose of education, the role of schools, and the role of teachers. This conversation seems to be having a revival in the context of system mandates, and therefore my view is that it warrants more depth of thought, and more consideration than dichotomies allow. Systems have always oscillated, and they will again, but more on this later. Let’s start with some definitions.

Low variance

What do we actually mean by low variance? Do we have a shared understanding? We know what it literally means, with definitions like high consistency, stability, and very little fluctuation, but what does that mean in systems, schools, or individual classrooms? In my mind it means that what we teach and when, across six grade one classrooms in the same school, for example, is virtually the same. For me it relates to curriculum content, learning design, core resources, and pacing, not so much pedagogy, although the concept of low variance is likely to occur in systems or schools with a shared understanding or view of pedagogical approaches. Others may view low variance as encompassing pedagogy too, and that’s probably where the most tension kicks in. For example, “We’re an EDI school” is, in my view, incredibly naïve and unhelpful. I am yet to understand how one can read and unpack a novel in English using Explicit Direct Instruction, when it’s predominantly a dialogic and strategic pursuit.

Some also baulk at the concept of low variance curriculum, but I do wonder if that’s at least partly due to so much of it being done so poorly at the moment (en masse resourcing without choice, commensurate knowledge building or time to build shared rules of engagement) and a feeling that low variance is a misnomer for no variance. In my view, when we do not consider what will be taught and when as a collective, we risk all sorts of learning gaps. In my domains of English and literacy, high consistency, and stability when it comes to what we teach and when really matters, within and between year levels, because so much in reading and writing knowledge and skill development is sequential and cumulative. If that’s what we mean by low variance I support that thinking.

I certainly work in spaces where low variance has merely become the latest in populist ‘Science of Learning’ buzzwords. It is delivered earnestly in presentations to articulate approaches that, dear reader, have not been articulated. In other spaces it can look like every teacher mindlessly clicking through exactly the same number of slides saying exactly the same thing, day in day out. In many contexts it is certainly not enacted in the way that I understand it, but perhaps I don’t have sufficient clarity either. It also might be one of those nebulous concepts that cannot be defined in totally uniform ways. Perhaps it can only be defined specifically within individual schools, given we all have our own ways of documenting and resourcing our in-house curriculum. Where does low variance sit on the spectrum below?

Total variance                                                                                                          No variance

Autonomy

And what about autonomy? What do we mean by that? Well, we really need to talk about a few other terms at the same time. In education, definitions, loosely, are as follows:

Authority: a person or organisation with the power to make decisions or give instructions about standards, expectations or outcomes (e.g., a policy maker, a Principal)

Responsibility: having the duty to and/or motivation and skill to work toward the standards, expectations, or outcomes

Accountability: sits within/is a core aspect of responsibility, the obligation to answer for the standards, expectations or outcomes (e.g., Did I fulfil the duty/responsibility?)

Autonomy: the capacity, desire or right to self-govern, independent choice, independent decision making (interestingly autonomy is not quite synonymous with freedom)

Compliance: adherence to mandates, policies, guidelines, or frameworks set by the person or organisation with authority or power (e.g., I must meet the standards, expectations or outcomes whether I agree with them or not.)

What has shifted in Victoria and many other systems, sectors or jurisdictions is the authority element, and with it, the expected standards or outcomes that are being set. When people say we have been used to autonomy in Victorian schools, that is true, but really, we have been used to being our own authority in our respective schools, at least with respect to teaching and learning. We have had not just the independence, but the power to make decisions about standards or outcomes in our context.

It is worth differentiating individual and relational autonomy.

Individual autonomy: I have the ability or desire to behave according to my own beliefs, motives, or reasons, rather than according to any external pressure. I may resist external pressure.

Relational autonomy: I recognise that my individual autonomy must be defined in relation to others. I will need to balance my own agency with other factors, influences or pressures, including peer, community, social, organisational, or external priorities.

It is also worth distinguishing between autonomy for individuals and autonomy for schools, as they are not the same thing. So, again, I will ask, do we have a shared understanding of autonomy when we debate the tensions? Arguably relational autonomy may fit reasonably well within a low(er) variance approach, but individual autonomy and low variance are likely a far trickier marriage. Can schools still have autonomy within this new climate, and should they? Where do we want curriculum autonomy (what is taught) to sit on the spectrum in our system or school? What about pedagogical autonomy (how the curriculum is taught)?

Total autonomy                                                                                                     No autonomy

The subsidiarity principle

Many organisations and governments consider the subsidiarity principle. It is based on the concept that decision-making authority should be placed where responsibility for outcomes lies and as close as possible to the actions that produce those outcomes, ensuring that authority is matched with accountability (e.g. Wolf, 2001).

What does this mean for work in schools?

• As much as possible, decisions should be made by those closest to the issue (leaders and teachers).

• Higher level authorities (systems) should intervene only when necessary.

In that case, there is often a big difference between a system telling us we must do something, and our Principal or school leadership group, or staff as a collective, reaching consensus that we should do something.

I think some questions worth wrestling with are:

1. How can system authority and school autonomy co-exist?

2. How can school leader authority and teacher autonomy co-exist?

3. Is it likely to be effective in the long-term if systems have the authority, but schools have the responsibility and accountability?

4. How much individual or relational autonomy is possible or warranted if there are specific standards for curriculum and pedagogy within schools or systems?

I don’t think systems across sectors and jurisdictions in Australia have really considered these questions. Some reformers think schools and teachers should have very little autonomy. As such, they are mandating highly uniform ways of delivering teaching and learning across the schools they are responsible for. I think this is very grave error of judgement. It is particularly interesting given many reformers here seem to be on a quest to emulate England, yet reformers there credit much of their success to giving schools high degrees of autonomy (the high accountability-high autonomy recipe). The biggest tensions I see occurring here right now are when the position taken by the system (usually in the form of a curriculum mandate) is incongruent with a school’s reasonable right to autonomy, and how they wish to enact responsibility and accountability for outcomes. I think this is a problem. Here’s an example situation:

Authority	Autonomy	Responsibility	Accountability
A system mandates a specific curriculum resource e.g., a phonics curriculum.	Schools lose the right to independent curriculum decision making.	Implementation responsibility is delegated to schools, typically with limited support.	Schools now have an obligation to answer for outcomes using resources they had no choice in adopting.

 What’s the problem with that mandate, you might ask? Systems don’t always make good choices and programs and resources come and go. A better option may be around the corner. A better option may already exist. Schools may already have an equivalent (or better) curriculum they are getting great results with. Schools may adopt the new resource without really thinking and have no clear rationale for its purpose. Schools may publicly or privately refuse to adopt (open resistance or the illusion of compliance). Schools may feel like their judgements or knowledge of their contexts have not been respected or valued. There can be low motivation or buy-in. There can be erroneous implementation as training and implementation support are usually inadequate. What would be a better option? Provide a list of high-quality options for schools to choose from, or provide one resource as the recommended/supported option that schools can benchmark against their existing offerings. If schools are getting great results doing what they are doing, why should they change?

My view on the role of systems is that they should provide reliable, high-quality guidance and centralised supports (assessment tools, curriculum resources). Authority in most instances should match accountability. That is, when systems assume total authority and schools are pressured with total responsibility and accountability, there is an abyss, a mismatch between the two, that is unlikely to last the test of time. System mandates should be considered carefully and implemented sparingly. Many tend to think I support mandates because I work so closely with systems on policy development and implementation. The reality is I’m very cautious about mandates. I do not think we have a lot of evidence of their success locally or globally. Very few last. Very few have the desired effect. Mandates can lead to initial compliance that is willing or unwilling, and implementation that is superficial and fades before knowledge or practice shift. Mandates can also lead to system dependence and schools doing less of their own thinking. My view is systems should focus on temporary capacity building (when required) and avoid long-term dependency. My advice to systems and school leaders is always the same: “Do not mandate anything you can not or will not monitor or enforce.” What’s the point? Some schools and systems I work in or hear about seem to be in dire straits. Teachers are implementing mandated resources they do not understand, to achieve unarticulated purposes, without a shared knowledge or vision for what the end goal is. This should worry all of us. I believe systems are accountable for the impact of their mandates. If mandates don’t work it is because they have not appropriately supported schools, they have not built the knowledge for why it matters, they have not appropriately resourced or followed through, or they made the wrong call to mandate in the first place. Whoever sets the mandate is responsible for its effect otherwise its simply passing the buck.

I support mandating some (very few) assessment tools (e.g., The Year 1 Phonics Check), but perhaps not for the reason you think. It is not because I want systems to have that authority, it is because I want schools to have the right tools to manage their accountability. When we all use the same or similar high-quality tools, it helps us to collectively focus on the most powerful levers in our own settings and between settings, but I’m also fine with systems using that data for good, for example, to determine which schools or groups of schools may need the most support. I am vehemently opposed to mandating curriculum products or resources. Curriculum resourcing is the remit of schools. At best this approach is likely to get five or ten years of compliance or its illusion. Then what? I am fine with recommending or supporting resources, as that can help set a quality standard, but schools need choice, and change for change’s sake typically disrupts years of progress. I support systems mandating the teaching of phonics because it’s so foundational to early literacy development, but I do not support systems mandating one resource to teach phonics with. I am vehemently opposed to mandating teaching techniques or pedagogies. That is entirely the business of schools, and it’s also utterly impossible for a system to monitor such a thing.

Strategic versus tactical decisions

I’ll use examples from Victoria’s state system here, but hold in mind many other systems are mid-reform and we can learn from them too. It’s easy to get caught up in the hype, but very few things have absolutely changed here in Victoria in terms of the core business of schools. Along with the option of following several recommendations or accessing revised guidance, curriculum resources and assessment tools, we have three mandates:

• Administer the Year 1 Phonics Check annually from 2026.

• Teach phonics every day in F-2.

• Implement [embed] VTLM 2.0 by 2028.

In these circumstances, it’s worth reflecting on who is responsible for what, and in doing so, we can see how much autonomy schools and teachers still have (as they should) in the day-to day. In industries outside of education, decision making is often sorted into two categories: strategic (the big picture of what and why) and tactical (the nitty gritty of what and why, but mostly how). I think these lenses are helpful in this case.

Strategic decisions [arguably the role of systems]

In my view, systems are responsible for setting a strategic vision and purpose, establishing perspectives on key issues, balancing competing claims and ideas, making large scale decisions, and providing advice and resources consistent with the systems vision and the best available evidence. Many systems are now doing some or all of these things. I think this is generally a good thing however many systems are also stepping beyond that remit, into the tactical. I guess we will know in a decade or so whether that was the best choice.

Tactical decisions [arguably the role of schools]

In my view, schools are responsible for making tactical decisions that are consistent with the strategic vision set by their respective system. Schools are responsible for decisions regarding exactly how or how well something will be performed in their context. Back to the subsidiarity principle [decentralisation], tactical decisions are thought to be best left to the people closest to the impact. This is important as there are no simple cookie cutter solutions to curriculum, pedagogy, professional learning, or improving and sustaining results over time, despite some reformers and stakeholders being obsessed with the possibility. I’ve included one worked example below, and two for you to think about.

Victoria’s Phonics Mandate

Strategic decision	Tactical decisions
Schools must teach 25-minutes of SSP per day in F-2.	Which scope and sequence Scope and sequence pacing Scope and sequence modifications Which teacher resources Which student resources Which lesson design Which pedagogical practices Which monitoring tools Where it will sit in the timetable How to extend and scaffold What intervention will look like

Victoria’s Reading Position

Strategic decision	Tactical decisions
Schools should teach the Big 6 (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, oral language, comprehension) as part of a comprehensive F-2 literacy curriculum.	Which tactical decisions would leaders need to make? Which tactical decisions would teachers need to make?

The Victorian Teaching and Learning Model 2.0

Strategic decision	Tactical decisions
Schools need an updated framework and guidance on how learning happens and descriptions of some best bets or key considerations for teaching approaches and practices. Schools must show how they have embedded the Elements of Learning and Elements of Teaching.	Which tactical decisions would leaders need to make? Which tactical decisions would teachers need to make?

In closing

It is not as simple as low variance or autonomy, nor is it as simple as centralisation or decentralisation. The oscillations of systems across the globe are well documented. Systems intervene in the business of schools in minor and major ways all the time. Centralisation (less autonomy, less variance) seems to be a reflexive response to external pressures or declining or wide-ranging results within a system, while decentralisation (more autonomy, more variance) seems to be a reflexive retreat when results improve or stabilise again, or when institutional memories fade. We do not seem to learn the lesson about how much system intervention is optimal. Systems seem to catastrophically overdo it or underdo it, rather than deliberately and thoughtfully building clarity about strategic and tactical decision making. It will be interesting to see where we end up in Australia in five, ten, or twenty years. What will our lessons be then? Which systems will have be most effective?

Can strategic, thoughtful, uniform mandates (e.g., the Year 1 Phonics Check), position statements, guidance documents, and high-quality tools and resources shift the needle on literacy outcomes in Australia at scale? We don’t know. I think they can, but only if we ensure schools, leaders, and teachers feel autonomous, knowledgeable, empowered, motivated and successful in their own contexts. I don’t think anyone works harder than people in schools. We have to want to do what we’re doing. We have to believe in it, and we have to see its impact, or in the day-to-day pressure and chaos, or the presence of better or more comfortable options, many will move away from initiatives quite quickly. Tactical decisions and strategic decisions could rapidly become disparate again.

Two things can be true. We can believe in a low variance offering and seek to establish that in our system or school, while those choices can make individual schools and teachers miserable when enacted poorly or at odds with their views. Those concerns are worth listening to and worth responding to. I see poor implementation in schools and systems all the time. Leaders have had an idea, or leaders experience system/sector pressure to implement something, and all that pressure falls on to teachers, without sufficient time or care taken to build the knowledge of what, why and how, without adapting to context, and without supporting teachers to make it their own.

It is great to see systems having more clarity and direction. It is great to see systems making strategic decisions. Systems should have the authority to insist on powerful levers, but only with the strongest of rationales. While taking a stand, systems should be careful of overreach. If schools are struggling, systems should provide responsive support. If schools are succeeding, systems should get out of the way. And if we want to go back to first principles, let the first of the first be the subsidiarity principle.