Government policies have driven the decline in educational outcomes. Stop it.

State and Federal governments are now rushing to undo their last 30 years of state-mandated teaching instruction guidance. For some, this can’t come soon enough. For others, this is just another salvo in a never-ending war that prioritises fads and fashion over teaching practice.

Both levels of government share the blame here. Both have mandated practices that dictate, from Canberra or Spring Street, how teachers should practice in the classroom. Worse still, they have not consulted with, or listened to, practising teachers over this journey.

Systems must have checks and balances, and schools and teachers should be accountable for their performance. But the failure to recognise the inherent limits of “evidence-based practice” still holds back teachers and students’ learning outcomes. It’s quite simple – what works on Monday may not work the same way on Friday, or after lunch, or if it’s windy, or for this topic, or for this student, or at this school.

Expert teachers use expert practice based on the context, the students, and the content. Expert practice in Maths is not the same as in English or PE. The goals in teaching handwriting are different to those in teaching history. There is a role and a place for explicit instruction in the same way there is a role and a place for inquiry learning. Expert teachers can tell the difference and use the methods best suited to their students and classroom.

The Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) is desperately trying to uplift teacher practice. But with the state and federal government continuing to mandate practice, how can this succeed? If the mandated practice being championed by AITLS is contributing to the decline, then it will make it worse, not better.

Bureaucratic interference in the classroom has worsened student outcomes, reduced teacher morale, and reduced confidence in public education. Rather than back off, state and federal governments have doubled down, mandating additional practices. You’d think they’d have learnt by now.

If we want to raise the profile and respect of the teaching profession, then that starts with state and federal governments not treating the teaching workforce like dunces.

The National Curriculum mandates the content to be taught. NAPLAN and PISA are important checks on teaching outcomes. But reasonable flexibility is needed in professional practice.

Google backgrounder

The integration of inquiry-based learning (IBL) into the Australian education system evolved over several decades, shifting from decentralized classroom experiments into a mandatory, federally legislated curriculum framework. [1, 2, 3]

The timeline below details how Australia formalized student-led inquiry from the 1970s to the current educational landscape.

			
[1970s-1980s] Progressive Roots & State-Based Syllabi
      │
[1990s]       The "Inquiry Cycle" Framework Emerges (Kath Murdoch)
      │
[2005]        The PrimaryConnections Launch (National Science Inquiry)
      │
[2010-2012]   The Australian Curriculum Era (IBL Institutionalized)
      │
[2015-2019]   Early Years Framework Shift (Play-Based Inquiry)
      │
[2020s-Pres]  The Modern "Great Debate" & The Guided/Explicit Hybrid

		

1970s – 1980s: Progressive Roots and State Autonomy

During this era, Australian education was highly decentralized, with state-based boards experimenting heavily with progressive pedagogy. [2]

1975 (The National Curriculum Development Centre): Australia established a national body to discuss unified schooling frameworks. Global progressive educators visited Australia, sparking discussions that challenged rigid, rote-learning systems. [2]
Late 1980s (The Move Beyond Textbooks): Individual state departments (such as Victoria and South Australia) began emphasizing process-oriented education over simple fact memorization, setting the stage for systemic student research. [4]

1990s: The Formalization of “Inquiry Cycles”

The 1990s shifted the conceptual approach from general “student-centered activities” to rigorous, structured pedagogies. [5, 6]

1998 (The Murdoch Model): Melbourne educator Kath Murdoch published her influential “Inquiry Cycle” (Tuning In, Finding Out, Sorting Out, Going Further, Making Conclusions, Taking Action). It provided Australian primary school teachers with a highly adaptable blueprint to manage student-led projects. [5, 7, 8]

2005: PrimaryConnections and Science Reform

Before a national curriculum existed, scientific inquiry was unified through a major initiative by the scientific community.

2005 (The 5Es Standardization): The Australian Academy of Science launched the PrimaryConnections program. Backed by government funding, this program systematically embedded the 5Es instructional model (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate) into primary schools nationwide, setting a strict benchmark for scientific inquiry. [9, 10, 11]

2010 – 2012: The Australian Curriculum Era (ACARA)

This period marked the official transformation of IBL from a recommended practice into a national legal requirement.

2010 (The ACARA Launch): The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) introduced Version 1.0 of the national curriculum. [12, 13]
Institutionalized Inquiry: For the first time, subjects like Science and History were explicitly divided into content strands and process strands. “Science Inquiry Skills” and “Historical Inquiry” became mandatory learning criteria across every state and territory. [14, 15]

2015 – 2019: Early Years and Play-Based Inquiry

The inquiry approach was formally pushed down into the earliest years of development.

2016 (EYLF Integration): Revisions to the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) mandated a “Play-Based Inquiry” approach. Kindergarten and Prep classrooms shifted toward child-centric exploration, assessing spatial, math, and literacy concepts through guided play. [16, 17, 18]

2020s – Present: The Modern “Great Debate” & The Hybrid Approach

The contemporary era has brought intense scrutiny regarding cognitive overload and student equity. [19, 20]

The Direct Instruction Backlash: Following dipping results in international assessments (like PISA), multiple state departments (led by New South Wales and South Australia) enforced policies explicitly prioritizing Direct / Explicit Instruction for foundational literacy and numeracy.
2026 (The Guided Inquiry Consensus): Today, the Australian education system largely rejects “pure, unguided inquiry”. The current Australian Government Department of Education framework champions Guided Inquiry—a deliberate hybrid where teachers deliver heavy explicit scaffolding first, before transitioning students into open inquiry tasks. [16, 21, 22, 23, 24]

[1] https://www.researchgate.net

[2] https://scpp.esrc.unimelb.edu.au

[3] https://www.mdpi.com

[4] https://www.vic.gov.au

[5] https://www.quintilianschool.wa.edu.au

[6] https://www.kathmurdoch.com.au

[7] https://www.pypteachingtools.com

[8] https://misp.org

[9] https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au

[10] https://australiancurriculumclassroomapproaches.org

[11] https://www.sciencedirect.com

[12] https://files.eric.ed.gov

[13] https://primarium.info

[14] https://www.acara.edu.au

[15] https://www.revistas.udesc.br

[16] https://www.education.gov.au

[17] https://www.mindchamps.org

[18] https://d-nb.info

[19] https://www.theaustralian.com.au

[20] https://files.eric.ed.gov

[21] https://www.clickvieweducation.com

[22] https://www.linkedin.com

[23] https://grattan.edu.au

[24] https://files.eric.ed.gov

The institutionalization of inquiry-based learning (IBL) in Australia has not followed a uniform timeline. Because state education departments retain autonomous control over their school syllabi, the historical trajectory of IBL is fractured.

The timeline below outlines the national evolution of inquiry alongside the critical state-specific variations that occurred at each historical milestone.

1970s–1980s: Decentralized Progressive Roots

The foundation of student-centered, experiential learning emerged during this era, but implementation was entirely dependent on individual state philosophies.

National Trend: Rapid movement away from rigid, text-heavy rote memorization in favor of process-oriented curricula.
State Variations: Victoria (VIC) and South Australia (SA) eagerly embraced progressive education, rewriting local high school syllabi to encourage open-ended student research. Conversely, New South Wales (NSW) maintained a highly conservative, centralized syllabus structure, prioritizing standardized exams and basic content mastery over student-led exploration.

1990s: The Creation of Structural Frameworks

The 1990s transitioned inquiry from a generic “classroom vibe” into specific, structured pedagogical cycles.

National Trend: Local educational researchers began publishing “inquiry cycles” to give primary teachers a concrete roadmap for student investigations.
State Variations: Victoria became the primary testing ground for the landmark Kath Murdoch Inquiry Cycle, heavily embedding it into Melbourne primary schools to drive integrated units. Queensland (QLD) and Western Australia (WA) lagged behind this systematic framework adoption, largely leaving inquiry up to the discretion of individual school principals.

2005: The Scientific Inquiry Benchmark

The scientific community stepped in to formalize a uniform national benchmark for scientific inquiry.

National Trend: The Australian Academy of Science launched PrimaryConnections, a federally funded initiative that codified the 5Es instructional model (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate) into primary science education.
State Variations: Implementation was highly uneven. Victoria, South Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) adopted the PrimaryConnections inquiry modules rapidly as core curriculum resources. Meanwhile, NSW schools heavily modified the program, ensuring that teacher-directed content delivery remained dominant over the “Explore” phase.

2010–2012: Mandatory Federal Curricula

This era marked the official federal legislate-ization of inquiry-based learning.

National Trend: The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) introduced the first unified Australian Curriculum. This structurally mandated that subjects like Science and History include dedicated “Inquiry Skills” strands, making the testing of inquiry processes legally compulsory.
State Variations: Victoria fully adopted the national curriculum via its local version (the Victorian Curriculum), keeping inquiry at the center of its assessment strategy. However, NSW strongly resisted a complete federal takeover; the state created its own NSW Syllabi, which explicitly re-ordered the national outcomes to ensure that direct factual knowledge was taught and assessed before students were permitted to engage in inquiry skills.

2020s–Present: The “Explicit Instruction” Realignment

The contemporary era has seen a massive policy correction across the country due to growing concerns over cognitive overload and falling performance on international metrics like PISA.

National Trend: “Pure, unguided inquiry” has been systematically rejected by government bodies. The national consensus has shifted strictly toward Guided Inquiry or Explicit Instruction.
State Variations:
- New South Wales (NSW): Led the structural backlash under the Department of Education, mandating explicit instruction (“I Do, We Do, You Do”) as the required foundational teaching model across all public schools. Inquiry is strictly back-ended as an extension activity.
- Victoria (VIC): Functioned as the last major holdout, vigorously defending play-based and project inquiry. However, under the updated Victorian Teaching and Learning Model (VTLM 2.0), the state mandated a shift toward explicit instruction and systematic synthetic phonics, forcing traditional inquiry-only streams to actively restructure.
- Australian Capital Territory (ACT): Remains an outlier, maintaining a highly saturated market of International Baccalaureate (IB) schools that run systemic, inquiry-driven Primary Years Programmes.

Since the early 1990s, school achievement metrics in Australia have experienced a striking divergence: primary school literacy and numeracy outcomes have steadily improved, while high school performance has stalled or significantly declined. This long-term trend has transformed Australia from a top-tier international performer into a country facing growing equity gaps and systemic imbalances. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

1. Key Trends Across Major Metrics

The trajectory of Australian student achievement depends heavily on the specific metric and age group being measured: [1, 2, 6]

PISA (Program for International Student Assessment – 15-year-olds):
- Trend: Severe, long-term decline.
- Details: Since PISA testing began in 2000, Australia’s average scores have plummeted. By 2022, mathematics scores dropped by 37 points (equivalent to students being 16 months behind their 2000 counterparts) and reading dropped by 30 points (over a year behind). [7, 8, 9]
TIMSS & PIRLS (International Primary/Middle School Metrics):
- Trend: Positive in primary, flat in secondary.
- Details: In Year 4 Mathematics and Science (TIMSS), student scores rose significantly between 1995 and 2007 and have remained stable since. Year 4 reading skills (PIRLS) also jumped notably between 2011 and 2021. However, Year 8 results in these same international tests have completely stagnated since 1995. [1, 2, 10, 11, 12]
NAPLAN (National Assessment Program – Years 3, 5, 7, 9):
- Trend: A clear primary-versus-high-school split.
- Details: Since NAPLAN’s launch in 2008, Year 3 reading outcomes have improved by the equivalent of a full year of progress. Conversely, Year 9 reading and numeracy progress has remained stubbornly flat or declined slightly. [1, 2, 13, 14]
Retention Rates (Completing School):
- Trend: Plateaued after a 1990s boom.
- Details: Apparent retention from Year 10 to Year 12 skyrocketed from 33% in the early 1980s to a peak of 77% in 1992. It dropped slightly through the late 1990s as vocational education pathways grew, stabilizing around 72-75% before shifting to modern participation frameworks. [2, 5, 15, 16]

2. Core Factors Driving the Trends

Educational researchers, the Productivity Commission, and independent reports highlight several structural, financial, and pedagogical drivers behind these mixed metrics: [4, 17]

A. School Segregation and Equity Imbalances [18]

The single biggest predictor of declining high school metrics is the widening achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. [19]

The Sector Drift: Since the 1990s, government policies accelerated enrolment shifts toward non-government (Catholic and Independent) sectors. [4, 20, 21]
Socioeconomic Concentration: This drift left public schools educating a disproportionate concentration of students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, regional/remote areas, and Indigenous communities. Research proves that heavy concentrations of disadvantage within a single school drag down collective academic outcomes faster than individual student traits do. [20, 22]

B. Flaws in the Funding Architecture [2]

While total government spending on schooling has grown since the landmark 2011 Gonski review, where the money went created massive inefficiencies. [20, 23, 24, 25, 26]

Misallocated Funds: Combined Commonwealth and state funding grew significantly faster for private schools than public schools over the decades. [27]
Failing the SRS Target: The majority of public schools—which enroll 64% of all students and the vast majority of disadvantaged cohorts—still operate below 100% of their Schooling Resource Standard (SRS), limiting their capacity for intensive high-school intervention programs. [4, 28, 29, 30]

C. Shifts in Curriculum and Instruction Methods

The diverging success of primary vs. secondary schools points to pedagogical changes:

The Primary School Success: The structural lift in Year 3/Year 4 metrics is widely credited to a deliberate nationwide pivot toward systematic synthetic phonics and explicit literacy instruction in the early years.
The High School Slump: Senior curricula historically leaned heavily into self-directed, inquiry-based learning. Cross-country data indicates that a lack of explicit, teacher-directed instruction in complex secondary mathematics and science domains contributed directly to Australia’s slide in PISA rankings. [1, 2, 7, 31]

D. Teacher Workforce Pressures

The quality and stability of the teaching workforce have faced acute pressures since the late 2000s:

Out-of-Field Teaching: Due to severe workforce shortages, up to 40% of junior high school math and science classes are taught by teachers without a specialization in those subjects, contributing to the poor Year 8 and 9 metrics.
Admin Burden: Rising administrative tasks have diverted teacher time away from high-quality lesson design and individual student tracking. [17, 32]

[1] https://theconversation.com

[2] https://rune.une.edu.au

[3] https://www.acer.org

[4] https://www.barbaraprestonresearch.com.au

[5] https://dusseldorp.org.au

[6] https://www.education.gov.au

[7] https://ipa.org.au

[8] https://www.acer.org

[9] https://www.adelaidenow.com.au

[10] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

[11] https://www.uow.edu.au

[12] https://www.acer.org