Advocacy & Activism: Nothing About Us, Without Us!

By Dr. Peter Mader, Former President of SASPA and Vice President of ASPA

In a recent ASPA post, Australia’s Education System Is Not Failing — But the Narrative Is, Craig Petersen was critical of our nation’s reliance upon standardised test data in shaping education directions, strategy and policy. It is a criticism shared by many, including academics such as Ashenden (2024), Bonnor et al (2021), Reid (2020) and Sahlberg (2023). But, despite the various and compelling arguments for change, our politicians remain resolute in their reliance upon standardised test data - a practice in keeping with the OECD’s global neo-liberal strategy for increased competition, standardisation and test-based accountability. Unfortunately, what was designed as a productivity measure – i.e., a way for government to monitor the schooling sector’s outputs in relation to their funding inputs – has become the nation’s proxy for the quality of schooling. Yet, by their own measures – NAPLAN (nationally) and PISA (internationally) – Australia’s neoliberal education project has failed.

So, what can principal associations do?  

Advocacy

Principal associations perform two major functions. One is to build the professional capital of secondary education leaders. The other is to advocate for the work of educational leaders. Here, our Association presidents perform the role of policy advocates, positioned in the contested space between governments (and bureaucracies) and principals (who’s professional and policy interests they represent). But, as good as their advocacy is, it is performed within a set of norms established by the owners of policy, i.e., governments and their bureaucracies. It is the policy owners who determine systemic directions, goals and strategies and, if and when they consult principal associations, it is usually after an unyielding internal position has been formed. To accentuate this point, our problems with the nation’s over-reliance on standardised test data was never of the profession’s making. Rather, it was a commitment made and maintained by Education Ministers (see The Adelaide Declaration, 1999 and The Melbourne Declaration, 2008) without ever initiating meaningful consultation with the principal associations. And, whilst principal associations and their allies have provided considerable advocacy for change, it has been ignored by government. 

So, in circumstances such as this, is advocacy enough?

To make a case for change, advocacy relies on communication and negotiation. The ASPA Policy Briefing 2025 recognises this and calls for the establishment of formalised policy networks in each jurisdiction to enhance communication and collaboration between principals' associations and education departments, ensuring meaningful consultation on policy decisions. Still, from a tactical viewpoint, collective advocacy is the mechanism for policy changes to be negotiated within the pre-existing norms. Since it was government that designed and sustained a system we recognise as being over-reliant on standardised testing, is it likely they would voluntarily accept the changes we and others advocate? If they haven’t already accepted our well-made arguments, will they ever?

Perhaps, then, it is time for us to change gears and consider augmenting our advocacy with activism.

Activism

Unlike advocacy which follows a methodical and respectful process of truth-telling and relies on policy changes to be negotiated within pre-existing norms, activism is played by a different set of rules. Tactically, activism uses more confrontational methods such as protest, resistance, counter-conduct and refusal. For some, activism is akin to a political campaign (e.g., Black Lives Matter). For others, it is a commitment to social policy disruption (e.g., School Strike for Climate). Essentially, collective activism provides a means for large-scale  issues (e.g., a fairer and more socially just public education system for all Australians) to be recognised and understood as the basis for policy change. In my recent doctoral study, Principal associations: the struggle for political agency in neoliberalising policy regimes (Mader, 2024), I discuss a range of activist tactics principal associations could adopt to expand their political work. One of these is counter-hegemonic intervention.

Counter-Hegemonic Intervention

A concept developed by Chantal Mouffe (2009) for western democracies to engineer political, social and cultural change, counter-hegemonic intervention is a set of related actions designed to dismantle the existing hegemony (i.e., neoliberalism) and replace it with a better alternative. There are three acts to counter-hegemonic intervention, i.e., disarticulation, re-articulation and counter-hegemony.

An obvious starting point for principal associations looking to enact such a process would be to mount a challenge to the Government’s narrow standardisation agenda. Here, the disarticulation (i.e., a challenge to existing power and its discourse) has already begun. Principal associations and various academics have already denounced Australia’s neoliberal project and outlined its harmful consequences. However, if we were to adopt Mouffe’s process, this would be followed by a rearticulation (i.e., an alternative discourse). A plausible example of this would be to build the profession’s case for school and principal accountabilities to be matched to the broader purposes of schooling (i.e., qualification, socialisation and subjectification – see Biesta 2009) and, by implication, emphasising the need for more open and extensive school success measures. But any rearticulation must have the backing of the membership and, better still, the support from a coalition of allies (including academics and parent organisations). The logic here is that political momentum is built from a broadening of the base. The path to counter hegemony (i.e., the realisation of a clear alternative to the untrusted policies of neoliberalism) is a long one. Consequently, dissent must remain open until such time as the government’s policy settings change to reflect the alternatives the movement has offered.

It should be noted that activism is an adversarial venture not an antagonistic one. Principal associations can still be supportive of various measures governments take that are socially just and fair and are in support of our profession’s interests. But, when a policy setting is fundamentally wrong, and advocacy from our profession is not producing much needed change, activism might be a path worth taking.

Nothing About Us, Without Us

So, in remembering that the problem of our nation’s over-reliance upon standardised test data is not of our making, perhaps the activist position principal associations should adopt immediately is a “nothing about us, without us” attitude. That is, hold to the expectation that any development of government policy affecting the work of school principals be co-designed with our elected principal peak-bodies.

Nothing about us, without us!

References:

Ashenden, D. (2024). Unbeaching the Whale. Carlton, Victoria: Inside Story

Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33-46.

Bonnor, C., Kidson, P., Piccoli, A., Sahlberg, P., & Wilson, R. (2021). Structural failure: Why Australia keeps falling short of our educational goals. Gonski Institute for Education, University of NSW.

Mader, P. (2024). Principal associations: the struggle for political agency in neoliberalising policy regimes. Flinders University, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work.

Mouffe, C. (2009). The Importance of Engaging the State. In J. Pugh (Ed.), What is Radical Politics Today? (pp230-237). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Reid, A. (2020). Changing Australian education: How policy is taking us backwards and what can be done about it. Routledge.

Sahlberg, P. (2023). Trends in global education reform since the 1990s: Looking for the right way. International journal of educational development, 98, 1027-48.