Reframing the narrative: Renewing power resources and capabilities in union campaigns for public education

Abstract

Neoliberal logics have put teacher unions on the defensive, requiring evaluation of the resources and capabilities necessary to improve teachers’ industrial and professional conditions and broader public education issues. This article examines the case of a teachers' union in Australia – the NSW Teachers’ Federation – and their renewal of resources and capabilities in recent public education campaigns. In applying a power resources and capabilities framework to the analysis of two prominent campaigns, this article develops the argument for renewal of power resources and capabilities through mobilising and transforming narrative resources and reframing public education issues in order to challenge ideological narratives around public education, build discursive power and sustain influence within a neoliberal environment.

Keywords

Community education framing power resources social movement trade unions

An ongoing concern in industrial relations research is how unions build power and mobilise support for their causes (Murray, 2017). Within a climate of declining unionism globally, public sector unions have not experienced the same fate as that of private sector unions (Kelly, 2015). The public sector workers examined in this article – teachers – are the largest group of knowledge workers associated with organised labour in most Western industrialised countries, including Australia¹ (Stevenson, 2018). But despite enjoying high membership, significant challenges exist for public sector unions, including teachers' unions. Against a backdrop of neoliberal restructuring and austerity, public sector unions have experienced restrictions on collective bargaining and the right to strike, increased demands for concessions in negotiations, as well as wage cuts and freezes for workers. Teachers' unions are also operating in a sector that has undergone various iterations of reform in recent decades, affecting not only union power but the delivery of public services. Policy logics of privatisation, choice, competition and accountability have reshaped education into an economic tool to drive productivity and growth (Hogan and Thompson, 2019). Chronic underfunding of public education has led to residualisation of the sector (Connell, 2015). Meanwhile governments consistently attribute broader social and economic problems to (public) education systems that deliver supposedly poor academic outcomes (Helsby, 1999). Moreover, eroding system-level support has contributed to intense workload pressures for teachers in an industrial relations framework that has restricted union capacity to improve wages and conditions (Fitzgerald et al., 2019; Gavin, 2019). The structural, institutional and regulatory challenges facing public sector unions, including teachers' unions, in a neoliberal environment have therefore required a re-imagining of the power resources drawn upon and strategic capabilities enacted to dually advance union goals of improving the industrial/professional conditions of teachers and defending the essential (public) services delivered in the community (Bascia and Stevenson, 2017).

By drawing on an existing framework of power resources and strategic capabilities (Lévesque and Murray, 2010, 2013), this article examines renewal of the resources and capabilities necessary to deliver outcomes for public education and teachers in a neoliberal climate. In doing so, I investigate the following research questions:

Which power resources and strategic capabilities has one teachers' union used in recent public education campaigns?

How are these resources and capabilities utilised to build union power and drive campaign success?

To examine these issues, the article reports on a case study of a teachers' union in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia – the NSW Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF). The NSWTF is the largest public sector union in NSW, representing public sector teachers in one of the largest public education systems in the world (Sherington and Hughes, 2012). Through analysing two recent and prominent public education campaigns, this article argues for renewal of the power resources and strategic capabilities utilised by teachers' unions in order to build discursive power that challenges dominant neoliberal discourse around public education. By examining how the union has built discursive power through ‘framing’ processes and transforming narrative resources, it will contribute to emerging literature analysing the renewal of teachers' unions in a neoliberal context (Bascia and Stevenson, 2017; Stevenson, 2017, 2018), as well as literature on union power by understanding the transformative effects of narrative resources and the importance of ‘framing’ for mobilising narrative resources (Lévesque and Murray, 2013). By evaluating the effectiveness of the power resources developed and capabilities utilised for driving success in public education campaigns, this study will help assess the power and capacity needed for teachers' unions to effectively challenge current neoliberal policy and practice.

This article first canvasses school funding policies in Australia and the emergence of neoliberal reform in education to provide contextual understanding of current issues that frame public education campaigns. It then introduces the conceptual framework utilised in this article to analyse the campaigns. After detailing the research methodology of the study, I present data from two campaigns of the NSWTF. Following analysis and discussion of the campaigns through the ‘lens’ of the conceptual framework, I draw conclusions for understanding power resources and capabilities utilised to drive campaign success.

Funding arrangements and neoliberal reform: School education in the Australian context

This section provides a context to understand historic funding policies for public education in Australia, and union responses to these policies, as well as the emergence of a neoliberal education reform agenda that has reshaped the responses of teachers' unions to delivering sector outcomes.

Historic school funding arrangements and the emergence of ‘state aid’

Australia’s school education sector comprises government (public), non-government (private/independent) and Catholic schools, with most students (65.7%) attending government schools (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2020). While the provision of school education in Australia is the constitutional responsibility of the states and territories, there has been increased intervention by federal governments over time in the funding of education as well as the shaping of education policy (Campbell and Proctor, 2014). Australia is globally distinct in its funding of education, with a long history of supporting the non-government schooling sector. Indeed, Australia’s first schools in the early 1800s were run exclusively by the charity of the Catholic Church, with some government assistance later provided. Education in Australia became free, secular and compulsory with the passing of the Education Acts in the 1870s and 1880s, which, however, subsequently ceased funding to Catholic schools (Campbell and Proctor, 2014).

The NSWTF, likewise, has a long history of campaigning for increased funding for education since its founding over 100 years ago, particularly through ‘united-front’ community-based campaigning (O’Brien, 1987: 6). There have been significant tensions, however, around the framing of these funding campaigns (O’Brien, 1987). Throughout the early to mid-20th century, union campaigning focused on securing federal funding for education through arguing that educational progressivism could only be achieved if education was properly funded (by the federal Government) (O’Brien, 1987: 5). These demands intensified during the post-war period and also following release of key government reports at the time highlighting federal investment in education as necessary to enhance the nation’s economic, scientific and technological progress (O’Brien, 1987: 17–20). Such claims were a catalyst for increased federal funding of, and indeed intervention in, school education in Australia. However, minority sections of the union have fervently denounced the provision of ‘state aid’ – federal funding for non-government, private schools – holding the view that only the public system could provide schooling for all ‘without sectarian or class distinction’ and the sector would be harmed by the funding of non-government schools (O’Brien, 1987: 31). The issue of state aid attracted peak attention in NSW in 1962 after Catholic parents in the town of Goulburn closed their church schools due to financial constraints, prompting federal government intervention. At the federal level, Commonwealth recurrent funding for schools began through states grants legislation passed in 1969, while in 1973 the Whitlam Labor Government, acting on recommendations of the Karmel Report, introduced a needs-based funding model to ensure that all schools, no matter the sector, could achieve similar educational standards. While the NSWTF has expressed opposition to state aid as a matter of principle, the union’s leadership has typically taken a ‘soft’ stance on this issue, particularly to protect itself from claims of sectarianism (O’Brien, 1987: 41).

Neoliberalisation of school education and union responses

While the historic funding of school education has been framed around advancing national economic progress, the ‘neoliberalisation’ of education, particularly in the decades since the 1980s, has seen state aid increase rapidly and receive strong bipartisan support under a broader programme of neoliberal restructuring of education. Significantly, state aid increased sharply from 1996 to 2007 under the neoliberal policy of the Howard Liberal-National Government, such that after 5 years in office, the Commonwealth’s per capita outlay on private school students was over four times that of public school students (Vickers, 2005: 270). Such funding policies have contributed to the residualisation of public education, amplified through the public sector educating a higher proportion of disadvantaged or high-needs students.² According to Forsey (2014), such policies have contributed to a slow but significant leakage of students out of public education and into the fee-paying sector since the 1970s.³

The agenda around funding has coincided with neoliberal restructuring of education by federal and state governments, which has profoundly reoriented the purpose and values of education. Rather than being embedded within a liberal-humanist democratic tradition, education is now viewed instrumentally in terms of its economic value (Helsby, 1999; Hogan and Thompson, 2019). As such, a discourse of derision has overcast public education, with the sector seemingly in need of ‘reform’ to align with this re-imagining. New Public Management ideals have emphasised the need for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of educational provision, while centralising system reform and tighter education budgets have resulted in fewer resources and lean infrastructure to support teaching (Connell, 2015). In striving to improve global competitiveness and reform so-called ‘failing’ (public) schools, governments have established ‘global education standards’ through standardised high-stakes testing, centralising control over curricula and emphasising ‘accountability’ over outcomes (Sahlberg, 2016). These contemporary schooling practices have, however, served to undermine teacher expertise and professional autonomy (Hursh, 2007). In tandem with the neoliberal restructuring of the public sector, conservative governments have also reshaped the regulatory and political-institutional context in which unions operate (Camfield, 2007). Legislation, passed in 2012, has denied capacity for NSW public sector unions, including the NSWTF, to present ‘work value’ cases before the state industrial relations tribunal (Gavin, 2019). Teacher salaries have not only failed to keep pace with increasing workloads but have been capped under legislation since this time (Gavin, 2019). Australia’s regulatory system has also progressively restricted access to legal strike action and increased penalties for unions that contravene ‘no-strike’ orders (McCrystal, 2019). Within this environment, many scholars (e.g. Bascia and Stevenson, 2017; Camfield, 2007; Ross and Savage, 2013) observe public sector unions, including teachers' unions, having been forced to re-evaluate the resources and capabilities necessary to defend working conditions and sector issues.

It is worth noting that these circumstances are not unique to Australia, but reflect similar conditions in jurisdictions in the US, the UK and Sweden (Hursh, 2007; Lundahl et al., 2013). Emerging scholarship on the renewal of teachers' unions over the last decade has analysed how teachers' unions have responded, predominantly through social movement tactics that go beyond industrial action, as well as building alliances and coalitions, and engaging in political action (Alter, 2013). The success of teachers' unions has often been associated with the ability to frame workplace issues in terms of the interests of students and other stakeholders, like parents – an example of which has been famously seen by teachers in the Chicago School Districts (Weiner, 2012). Other studies (e.g. Greiner and Jalette, 2016; Thomas and Tufts, 2016) have also considered how conditions of neoliberalism and austerity have created both new challenges and new opportunities for public sector unionism. For example, Greiner and Jalette (2016) analysed how austerity provided an opportunity to renew union capacities and reaffirm union purpose among Canada’s teachers' unions by framing issues in terms of threats to both members’ vested interests and the broader community. Empirically, there is a gap in understanding the strategies utilised by teachers' unions in Australia. This will be addressed in the findings of this article.

Renewing union power in the education sector: Resources and capabilities

To understand how teachers' unions have built capacity in public education campaigns, one needs a way to analyse the sources of power and capabilities that unions can draw on to take action. As noted, while public sector unions have not experienced the same decline as private sector unions, enduring structural, institutional and regulatory challenges nevertheless affect their capacity to protect the working conditions of members and defend essential services. Building on Max Weber’s definition of power, power is perceived predominantly as the power to do something (‘power to’) – like unions representing workers’ interests to effect social change – rather than power to determine the rules of play (‘power over’) (Weber, 1963, cited in Levesque and Murray, 2010).

Power resources, understood as fixed or path-dependent assets that an actor can access and mobilise, provide unions with the strategic capacity to further their own interests (Lévesque and Murray, 2010). Originating in the studies of social movements in the Global South in the 1970s and 1980s, second-wave discussion on labour power followed with Erik Olin Wright (2000) and Beverly Silver (2003) introducing the concepts of ‘structural power’ and ‘associational power’, followed by scholarly discussion of additional sources of labour power (e.g. Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman, 2013; McGuire, 2014). Most recently, Christian Lévesque and Gregor Murray (2010, 2013) have proposed a framework of power resources and capabilities which emphasises that specific capabilities, like framing or learning, are also needed in order to mobilise individual power resources, such as network embeddedness, internal solidarity and narrative resources. The notion of capabilities suggests that resources, on their own, are not sufficient; we need to understand how these resources are developed, used and transformed as required by the circumstances (Lévesque and Murray, 2010).

It is worth briefly noting tensions around the sources of power and repertoires of action that can be deployed by public sector unions. Often our conceptual tools for thinking about labour relations are shaped by their origins in the private sector, which emphasise the need to organise across the labour market and the importance of the strike as a weapon in collective bargaining (Johnston, 1994). Applying this conventional industrial relations analysis to the public sector is problematic. Hyman (1978, cited in Szabó, 2020) argues that, historically, professional ethics and prohibitive legislation held public sector unions back from taking industrial action. Indeed, the NSWTF was founded as a ‘professional association’ and did not first strike until 1968, some 50 years after its founding. In the public sector, the political distribution of power is also skewed towards public employers as both budgetary authority and legislators (Høgedahl and Ibsen, 2017). Moreover, as employees of the state, public school teachers have usually been regarded as ‘professionals’, rather than members of the working class, with contention around the appropriateness for professionals to withdraw their labour from their clients (O’Brien, 1987: 196). This is not to discount, however, the effectiveness of more militant approaches, but to draw attention to the complexity of repertoires of action. For instance, teachers still occupy a critical position in the ‘economic system’ and collective action can be highly disruptive and potentially effective (McAlevey, 2016). Darlington’s (2009) study on the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers showed that although strike action can be the subject of public critique, it can also be an effective repertoire to improve pay and conditions, as well as increase union membership. Hence, forms of power should not be seen as separate or competing, but potentially interrelated and intertwined and capable of combining themselves in ways to enhance power (McGuire, 2014).

Developing their framework further, Lévesque and Murray (2013) have recently turned attention to the importance of narrative resources and the role of framing in mobilising and transforming narrative resources and building discursive power. Drawing on social movement literature, discursive capacity and narrative framings are argued to be an essential ingredient in enlarging repertoires of action (Fox Piven and Cloward, 2000; Tarrow, 2005). For example, Yates (2010) examined how a union successfully campaigned by reframing the conception of the women members it represented and the social role they play in the early childhood education and care sector. Narrative resources constitute a body of interpretive action frames that can be mobilised to explain new situations and new actions. They consist of the range of values, shared understandings, stories and ideologies that aggregate identities and interests and translate and inform motives (Lévesque and Murray, 2013). Such resources can be deployed to build discursive power. Narrative resources are also intimately linked with repertoires of union action; it is difficult to renew narrative resources without engaging in new forms of action.

Framing, derived from social movement theory, offers an ability to replenish the stock of narrative resources and present a credible, alternative solution to problems. Framing refers to the ability to craft interpretation patterns or ‘frames’ that define or legitimate repertoires of action and that put forward an agenda that can be inclusive and part of a broader social project (Benford and Snow, 2000; Lévesque and Murray, 2010; McAdam, 1982). Framing offers a critical means to challenge dominant discourses and is the key process through which discursive power is exercised through language (Lévesque and Murray, 2010; McGuire, 2014). This is particularly relevant in the field of education where education policy is shaped through public policy processes and discursive practices. Lévesque and Murray (2010) argue that the strategic capability of framing must be grounded in and interact with other local resources, like deliberative vitality (internal solidarity) and network embeddedness (links to unions and the community). Frames must also resonate with an audience – individuals need to feel a shared sense of grievance, provided with hope for redressing the problem, and persuaded that collective action is necessary (McAdam, 1982; Noakes and Johnston, 2005; Stevenson, 2017). In this way, framing links opportunity and action (McAdam, 1982). Frame analysis also encourages us to think about mobilisations and ‘forms of collective action’ as more multi-dimensional, beyond ‘traditional’ forms like strikes. For instance, Stevenson (2017) and Szabó (2020) argue for a more inclusive understanding of ‘resistance’ where repertoires of action are expanded, diverse and unpredictable.

For Snow et al. (1986), achieving ‘fit’ between an organisation’s interpretive orientation and that of potential members depends on the substance and appeal of its collective action frames. They posit that this interpretive fit is achieved through one of four ‘frame alignment processes’: frame bridging through bridging the interests of union members and the community by actively engaging the local community in the campaign; frame extension, which involves extending the frame of union action by drawing connections between an organisation’s own primary interests and values and those of other groups by framing them as mutually compatible; frame amplification, meaning to clarify and amplify the existing collective values of members; and frame transformation, which involves changing old understandings and meanings and/or generating new ones (Snow et al., 1986). This framework will be applied to examine the NSWTF’s utilisation of power resources and capabilities in recent public education campaigns.

Methodology

A qualitative case study approach was used to investigate how the NSWTF has built discursive power through its campaign strategy in the neoliberal era. Such an approach is useful when trying to get as close as possible to the phenomenon described and to provide a rich description of the social scene, the context in which events occur, and to determine the extent to which existing theories help us understand the case or require modification (Yin, 2018). Working inductively and through an interpretivist lens, this study focused on union strategy across two campaigns as subjectively interpreted by participants, generalising to theory from these observations (Bryman, 2008). Set against a backdrop of systemic cuts to public education funding, these campaigns were significant for the NSWTF to drive investment in, and re-assert the values of, public education. As with most case studies, there may be limitations in generalising some findings, particularly given that teachers' unions operate in diverse political, historical, social and economic contexts (Bascia and Stevenson, 2017). ‘Analytical generalisation’ for understanding renewal of power resources and capabilities for other teachers' unions, however, may be possible through this case (Yin, 2018).

This article reports findings about power resources and capabilities in two campaigns from a larger study which analysed how the NSWTF has strategically responded to neoliberal education reform agendas over the last 35 years. One aspect of this larger study, reported in this article, examined how the NSWTF has carried out public education campaigns from the 1980s to 2017 and evaluated the success of these campaigns for building union capacity and delivering outcomes. To understand the union’s strategic actions, data were first collected through analysing over 2600 union documentary sources ranging from the early 1980s to 2017, which included annual reports, minutes and decisions of union decision-making bodies and articles from the union’s periodical journal. Given the time period of the campaigns examined, documents from the early 2000s were particularly relied upon. Analysing this range and volume of documents was necessary to understand the repertoires of action utilised in these campaigns and to evaluate their effectiveness. Internal organisational documents (e.g. decisions of annual conferences) provided insight into debates and decision-making, while external-facing documents (e.g. the union journal) provided a means to examine the public reporting of the campaigns.

Data were then collected via semi-structured interviews to gain a deeper, more tacit understanding of phenomena observed in the document analysis (Saunders et al., 2007). Participants were chosen according to guidelines for ‘purposeful sampling’ (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) based on their core involvement in campaigns being examined and/or longevity of union involvement. Seventy-one (71) participants (34 female; 37 male) were interviewed including union officers (52), rank-and-file members (9), leaders of NSW principals’ organisations (3), senior officials of the NSW Department of Education (3), former NSW ministers for education (3) and the chair of a union inquiry (1). Participants are distinguished by their current and most senior position at the time of interviewing or prior to relinquishing their role (e.g. due to retirement). While the study examined union strategy, it was considered important to include perspectives from the government and the employer of teachers. The NSWTF is an industrial but also a political organisation operating in the context of actively responding to various government policies and, as argued by Armstrong (2003), the development and implementation of policy reform often includes a multitude of ‘voices’. Given the contemporary and historic involvement of the teachers’ union, government and employer in developing and implementing education policy in NSW, it was important to garner these various perspectives. This diversity of views also aided in triangulating the research findings and reducing bias (Bryman, 2008).

Interviews sought to fill knowledge gaps from the document analysis process, garner a sense of participants’ ‘lived experience’ around campaigns, and understand union decision-making. Themes addressed in the interviews were developed through initial discussions with key informants, from a comprehensive review of relevant literature and thematic analysis conducted during document analysis. Participants were asked to consider the development of campaign strategy and any internal tensions around strategy formulation and implementation, the nature and effectiveness of campaign tactics, the nature of engagement and relations with key stakeholders (parents, students, government, the department) during campaigns, and to evaluate campaign outcomes. Document and interview data were analysed using qualitative data analysis software NVivo and coded based on themes and sub-themes arising from the document analysis and interviewing processes explained above (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). A constant comparative method of analysis was used to analyse and code the document sources and interview transcripts (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). In the document analysis phase, tentative categories were formed, and incidents identified in the documents relating to certain categories were grouped together. These categories were used to inform the interview schedule and questions. During interviewing, existing themes were refined, or if new themes emerged, this prompted re-analysis of organisational documents. This allowed for recontextualisation and retriangulation of the data to better understand themes emerging from the various data sources and strengthen interpretations (Forster, 1994). Documents were particularly important to confirm and/or refute participants’ recollections of events, while views from government and department personnel supported interpretation of findings and minimised perceived bias.

The next section describes the key features and outcomes of two public education campaigns carried out by the NSWTF – the Independent Inquiry into the Provision of Public Education in NSW (the ‘Vinson Inquiry’) and the Review of Funding for Schooling (the ‘Gonski Review’) – that will subsequently be analysed.

Campaign One: Independent inquiry into funding for public education

Context

The Vinson Inquiry was launched by the NSWTF in the context of significant budget reductions to public education by both state and federal governments in the late 1990s and proposed closure of public schools in the state (Tattersall, 2009). It was within this context that a group of NSWTF Organisers and delegates in the state’s western suburbs began strategising about how to shift the union’s strategic capacity specifically through developing an evidence base to inform the future direction of public education (Tattersall, 2009). This group determined three key structural changes required to enhance the union’s organisational capacity and relationships – build a fund for public education campaigns; forge a new strategic relationship with principal groups; and organise local public education lobby groups (Tattersall, 2009). It was on this basis that the union forged a resource base and broad social frame in which to initiate change in public education.

The campaign

The defining work of the NSWTF during this time was an independent inquiry into public education lasting March 2001 to August 2002, chaired by Professor Tony Vinson. Considered ‘one of the high watermarks of the Federation’s recent history’ (former NSWTF Deputy President 1), the Inquiry would provide a comprehensive review of public education in NSW, not conducted for over 40 years. The terms of reference were therefore broad. With a mandate to examine the purpose and values of public education in society and recommend the resources and structures needed to achieve these, the inquiry addressed many areas including school infrastructure and resourcing, student welfare, school governance, social disadvantage, education in rural and remote communities, teacher preparation and induction and future staffing requirements (Esson et al., 2002). Some industrial issues, like salaries, were also considered. The inquiry was funded from a special $1 million Public Education Fund established by NSWTF Annual Conference 2000, with supplementary funding provided by the NSW parents and citizens’ association. Data were collected from school observations, public hearings, testimonies, a survey of teachers and written submissions (Esson et al., 2002).

A critical element of the union’s broader public education campaign at the time was the formation of a community-based alliance, known as the Public Education Alliance, which was comprised of peak bodies of teachers, principals and parents, as well as community and ethnic groups. Fundamental to this alliance-building was the NSWTF recasting its relationship with principals to leverage support, particularly as ‘over the years, the employer [Department of Education] ha[d] sought to bypass the Teachers’ Federation … by going to other organisations like principals’ organisations. And so the way around that was to build an alliance with parents and principals’ (former NSWTF president). The alliance engaged in various activities including organising a Public Education Conference and forming local advocacy groups to pressure state and federal parliamentarians to increase funding (NSWTF, 2000). This ‘united front’ proved critical to the inquiry’s success (former leader of principals’ association 1; former leader of principals’ association 2). To highlight the government’s shortcomings in properly funding public education, the NSWTF also ran an extensive media campaign around the theme of ‘Public Education – it is time to give it more’ (NSWTF, 2002).

Outcome

The inquiry’s findings, handed down over May to September 2002, made a number of recommendations around the focus areas outlined in the terms of reference, costing their implementation at $153 million per annum for 3 years (Esson et al., 2002: 168–170). The findings were significant in exposing to the community the effects of chronic underfunding for class sizes, student welfare and social inclusion, and also found teachers’ perceived weakened professional status due to negative media reports, underfunding of public education and poor comparative salaries (Esson et al., 2002). Many recommendations, such as improving policies for teacher registration, training and accreditation, were progressed ‘in-house’.

One of the major industrial items pursued by the NSWTF was addressing teacher/student ratios in the early years of education, estimated to cost $48.5 million per annum over the next 3 years, which became a key campaign item leading up to the next state election (Esson et al., 2002: 169). The success of the inquiry was reflected in the fact that, at the following state election, both major political parties had as a key item of their electoral platforms the implementation of a recommendation to establish maximum class sizes in NSW public schools across the early years of schooling. While the re-elected state government only supported ‘average’ class sizes, not ‘maximum’ class sizes, the NSWTF nevertheless considered this outcome to be a significant achievement for teaching and learning conditions (NSWTF, 2005). Regarding other industrial matters, the inquiry’s findings also informed the union’s subsequent salaries campaign in 2003–2004, which involved lodgement of a salaries claim and work value evidence in the industrial tribunal to improve teachers’ salaries.

Campaign Two: Gonski review of funding for schooling

Context

The Gonski funding campaign represented another watershed campaign where the union challenged neoliberal agendas that had eroded government investment in public education. In April 2010, then Federal Education Minister Julia Gillard announced the establishment of the ‘Review of Funding for Schooling’ to be led by Australian businessman David Gonski that would examine government funding for schools across all sectors. The review provided ‘one of the most exhaustive reviews of schooling that we [Australia] have had for decades, going back to the mid-1970s’ and would assess the effectiveness of the federal government’s school funding arrangements in place since this time (Bonnor, 2014).

Phase One – Campaigning during the review

In a combined campaigning effort driven under the umbrella national public sector education union – the Australian Education Union (AEU) – the NSWTF engaged in extensive grassroots, community organising to ensure the review panel considered the need for improved investment of funding for public education and recommended change to this effect.⁴ In investing several millions of dollars over the life of the campaign, this produced the most ‘far reaching’ and ‘unprecedented’ level of member and community mobilisation in Australia in support of achieving a more equitable school funding model (former NSWTF Deputy President 1).

In supporting the federal government’s call for a national review of school funding, the AEU drove the message of ‘Public Schools – For Our Future’ in what was ‘perhaps the [union’s] most important campaign in more than 40 years’ (NSWTF, 2014: 5). Over 2010–2011, several campaign activities were initiated. A campaign bus toured Australia to raise community awareness of the review; a national lobbying event was held in the nation’s capital that brought together teachers, parents and principals to lobby politicians; a National Day of Action called for submissions to the review; and national advertising and social media provided instruction on lodging a submission (NSWTF, 2010, 2011). By 2012, the review had received more than 7000 formal submissions (NSWTF, 2012). On the back of these submissions, the Gonski Review found that existing funding arrangements for schools across Australia were unnecessarily complex, lacked coherence and transparency, and contributed towards social disadvantage (Gonski et al., 2011). Forty-one recommendations were made, centred around a ‘needs-based, sector-blind’ school funding model worth $14.5 billion to be implemented over six years from 2014 that would fund all schooling sectors but provide additional loadings for areas of disadvantage (NSWTF, 2013).

Phase Two – Implementing the review recommendations

The next phase of campaigning focused on securing the enshrining of the recommendations into legislation. From June 2012, advertising and social media promoted the message of ‘I Give a Gonski’ within the community. In September 2012, the federal government subsequently announced that it would negotiate historic agreements with the states over revised school funding arrangements, with the landmark reforms passed by Australia’s Parliament in June 2013. By the end of 2016, schools had received about 20% of funding outlined in the negotiated agreements (AEU, 2016). However, within weeks of winning the September 2013 federal election, the newly elected Abbott Coalition Government announced that it would renegotiate these agreements, with schools to now only receive one-third of the proposed funding over just 4 years, instead of 6 (most funding was to be delivered in the final 2 years).

In response, the AEU/NSWTF encouraged schools to share their ‘Gonski story’ by articulating public messages of how the funding already flowing to schools helped to improve student learning outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged students. By developing and publicly communicating positive and local ‘Gonski stories’, the union aimed to capture the ‘hearts and minds’ (current NSWTF Organiser 1) of parents who could understand locally how this investment enhanced learning. This action was supported by designated ‘Gonski days’ that encouraged parent and community participation, such as wearing a green campaign t-shirt or signing a petition (current NSWTF Organiser 2). At key points, national delegations of teachers, students and parents met with federal politicians at the nation’s capital to report on the positive impact of Gonski funding.

The outcome

Despite intense campaigning over a number of years, the second budget of the Abbott Government brought down in May 2015 confirmed opposition to fund the final two years. Following a change of political leadership, newly appointed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull also announced a new schools funding plan in 2017, ‘Gonski 2.0’, which would cut $846 million in funding from NSW public schools and remove the needs-based funding model (NSWTF, 2017: 5).

Campaign analysis

This section analyses the frame alignment processes that influenced the repertoires of action deployed across both campaigns and the building of discursive power.

Frame bridging

Frame bridging involves linking unconnected frames, for example, of different types of actors or communities. Both campaigns saw the NSWTF activate an existing power resource (network embeddedness) utilised in earlier ‘united front’ funding campaigns through discursively articulating a common grievance around a lack of proper resourcing for public schooling. As argued by Camfield (2007), unions are typically more successful in garnering broader support for their cause when neoliberal reforms are framed as being contrary to the interests of both union members and the users of public services. The forming of the Public Education Alliance and recasting of union relations with school principals during the Vinson Inquiry were critical for applying pressure on the government for improved resourcing in the lead up to the next state election. Similarly, early success in the Gonski funding campaign could be attributed to large-scale, sustainable grassroots organising that mobilised small acts of support from teachers, parents and community members.

Critical to enhancing network embeddedness, as well as renewing narrative resources, was elevating discourse of social justice and fairness against a backdrop of neoliberal agendas that undermined public education values, articulating the benefits of increased funding for both students and teachers, localising the impact of funding and mobilising ‘micro’ acts of support. Within the Gonski campaign in particular, the discourse of ‘fairness’ facilitated frame bridging. As commented by a NSWTF Organiser: ‘people [understand] unfair…[I]f people can see that something’s wrong and unfair, that’s the way you get people involved in campaigns’ (current NSWTF Organiser 3). Additionally, while the increased funding from the new funding model would directly benefit teachers’ working conditions (such as by hiring more specialist teachers and relief staff), which were critical to the interests of union members, by discursively organising around the frames of ‘the child’ and ‘the local’, the union could more successfully bridge interests with parents. As commented by a former NSWTF Organiser: ‘it’s not just about teachers. Yes, [teachers] will benefit from reduced class sizes or more money in schools … but it’s the kids that ultimately are going to benefit, so it’s easier to get parents on board on that stuff’ (former NSWTF Organiser). Deploying a new repertoire of action in the form of ‘local stories’ also enabled the NSWTF/AEU to enlarge its stock of narrative resources by personalising the impact of funding flowing to public schools. One organiser reflected on how the campaign was discursively framed around:

not talking about the billions of dollars and talking about macro level, but just saying to the community this is what it means to you, this is what it means to Billy in kindy when he arrives at the school and he can’t speak a word of English, he’s able to get access to support … Those stories can’t be refuted and they can’t be talked down … [i]f you’re actually talking about a real human from a real place in a real situation. (current NSWTF Organiser 3)

New repertoires of action were also evident in the union’s grassroots organising. As described by a senior union official involved in the campaign:

It was very much all hands to the pump, the idea of getting some commitment out of every member, even if it’s just signing an online petition … to wearing the … t-shirt … and walking down and demonstrating or deputations, or talking to P&C’s [parents and citizens’ groups]. (current senior union official)

By mobilising ‘micro’ acts of support from an existing network, the Gonski campaign sustained broad but localised grassroots support and gave political strength to the union’s campaign (current leader of principals’ association; former NSWTF Organiser). Renewing the union’s stock of power resources and articulating new discursive framings centred around justice and fairness therefore assisted the union to secure its vested interests and achieve common cause with other actors (Bascia and Stevenson, 2017).

Frame extension

Frame extension involves extending the frame of union action through the enlargement of issues to potential constituents or supporters, framing them as mutually compatible. In addition to mobilising existing networks, in both campaigns the NSWTF extended the frame of union action by articulating the role of government in upholding the values of public education. This was achieved through renewal of repertoires of action and narrative resources that sought to establish trusting, cooperative relations with key political actors, as well as framing the union as a legitimate actor.

By launching an independent inquiry examining the purpose and values of public education, this new repertoire of action enabled the NSWTF to proactively establish an agenda for public education and articulate the government’s responsibility for properly resourcing public services eroded under neoliberal agendas. Critical to successful frame extension in the Vinson Inquiry was garnering political ‘buy-in’ from the NSW Government (specifically, the Minister for Education) and Education Department (Department Secretary) to the inquiry’s terms of reference. This was particularly crucial given the inquiry’s timing, which followed a decade-long period of industrial disputation between these organisations (Johnson and Shields, 2007). As commented by the inquiry’s chair:

There was a kind of atmosphere of undeclared war between … public school education teachers and governments … [T]he first major challenge of the project was how can the government and the Ministers … and people at large believe this is authentic, because the buggers have been fighting each other for so long.

The independent, arm's-length running of the inquiry⁵ by a respected academic also enhanced perceptions of objectivity, credibility and authority, thus strengthening the union’s claims (current NSWTF Deputy Secretary; current NSWTF Organiser 1; former senior union official). The inquiry therefore provided the union with a comprehensive evidence-base in which to articulate claims for improved resourcing of public education.

There are limits to frame extension, however, in drawing connections between the interests and values of diverse groups and in building discursive power when operating in a public sector environment. It is possible that the initiation of the Gonski Review and endorsement of its recommendations, as well as the commitment to terms of reference and implementation of many recommendations from the Vinson Inquiry, came about through the Labor Party being in power during these campaigns. Commentators often attribute Labor to having an historically close relationship with the trade union movement and typically being more ‘progressive’ on public education issues (Battin, 2017). A change of government at the national level during the roll-out of the Gonski reforms, however, brought a downgrading of the promise of funding. Additionally, union success may also hinge, to some extent, on claims that are politically popular. It is possible that success on class sizes following the Vinson Inquiry was achieved through bipartisan support on the issue in the lead-up to a state election and its appeal to parents as voters, despite the significant financial investment. This compares with more industrial issues, like salaries, which represent a significant budget item of government and are more difficult to mobilise parents around (Gavin, 2019).

Frame amplification

Frame amplification involves clarifying and amplifying the existing core values and norms of members, which also draws in new participants. As mentioned, education funding has been a long, complex campaign matter in which the union has traditionally taken a ‘soft’ public stance on the issue of state aid to avoid claims of sectarianism (O’Brien, 1987: 39). A similar approach has been adopted in more recent funding campaigns with differing purpose as part of renewing the union’s narrative resources – to frame a moral argument around the impact of funding for all students and reframe neoliberal discourse that has perpetuated a ‘private good/public bad’ ideology. For the NSWTF, this meant reframing earlier campaign messages, particularly emphasised during the Howard Government era where significant funding was being invested in private schooling. Reflecting on this reframing between campaigns, a former senior officer commented that:

there are other [funding] campaigns where we did not get this right … I don’t think we had resonance in the community cause I don’t think we persuaded the community that it was in their interest … [F]or many, many, many years … we would be shocked and appalled at Kings⁶ having 16 cricket pitches and 18 swimming pools and so forth. It didn’t wash, and it’s a distraction now, because, in the end, it’s how many dollars we give to children … [R]edistributing a tiny amount of money from elite private schools into a tiny number of [public] schools is not the main game … [I]f that means some amount of that [needs-based funding] goes to children in non-government schools, so be it, which is not quite the same as saying that we are enthusiastic about funds to elite private schools. We’re not. But it’s not the main game now.

In the Gonski campaign, the NSWTF/AEU amplified its core values of equity, social justice and allocating funding based on ‘need’. While state aid may be denounced ‘in principle’ and it ‘might still be sitting behind our thinking’, as commented by a leader of a principals’ association, the discursive framing of the campaign

went away from trying to identify how much money to give each sector, [whether] it’s the private or the public school sector, and it just focused on the needs of students which … might not seem like rocket science, but it was a breakthrough. (current NSWTF Organiser 1)

This discursive framing is crucial not only to advance social justice concerns (Bascia and Stevenson, 2017), but for political legitimacy to ‘draw in participants’. Former Ministers of Education and Department Secretaries commented that the union’s narrative framing in the Gonski campaign demonstrated ‘pragmatism’ (current Department Secretary), which was a shift away from what politicians saw as strong public denouncement by the union of government funding of private schools (current Department Secretary; former Education Minister 1; 2). These participants reflected on the uniqueness of Australia’s schooling system with its origins in Catholic education and historic funding of the non-government schooling sector. In the words of one minister, the Gonski reforms were ‘probably the best we were ever going to get’ in a country such as Australia because of the unlikelihood of seeing the government ‘completely upend the apple cart’ over education funding policies (former NSW Education Minister 1). This amplification of core values and renewal of narrative resources was politically successful with the department’s secretary viewing the union’s framing as effective to ‘get a place at the table’ in influencing policy, notwithstanding the limits of the campaign’s success.

Frame transformation

Frame transformation involves replacing old understandings and meanings and/or generating new ones, either in relation to a particular domain of activity or more generally. In both campaigns, the NSWTF reframed the narrative of public education and teachers’ work to resist neoliberal rhetoric of school ‘failure’ and discursively construct a ‘thesis’ for public education by articulating the positive work of teachers and local schools, thus shifting towards an agenda-setting discourse. This discursive framing was explained by the union’s president at the time of the Vinson Inquiry:

An attack on neoliberalism, or a defence against neoliberalism, isn’t only about defending and trying not to have losses … [H]aving to take the negative position in the public arena all the time is very hard for teachers. For example, the government is going to put a reform in place and we’re saying ‘no, no, no’ and we are saying ‘no’ for very good and valid reasons, but it’s still a negative … .[W]hat we tried to do [in the Vinson Inquiry] is create a thesis about what it is we want for public education and for our students, and then have the parents and principals support us in that thesis and then put the government in the position that they would have to do the negative, the antithesis … And on that premise that we argued that government had failed … public education.

A critical aspect of frame transformation was highlighting the positive aspects and achievements of public education and balancing this with discourse on the ‘shortcomings’ arising from chronic underfunding by neoliberal governments. As expressed by the inquiry’s chair:

I thought it was absolutely vital to make it clear that this was not a tragic tale of total disaster … I looked for the positives as well as then going on to the shortcomings and I think the parliamentarians in particular … their interest was lured or wooed by this [being] … an even-handed thing. There were good things in the system as well as bad things.

By articulating a vision for public education, this narrative framing effectively ‘put [the union] in a position where we were able to set the agenda around education’ (former NSWTF Organiser) and successfully ‘hold the State Government accountable’ by giving a ‘platform’ (current NSWTF Deputy Secretary) of clear, evidence-based recommendations on how to address problems in public education (current NSWTF Deputy Secretary). Similar frame transformation was adopted in the Gonski campaign. A leader of a principals’ organisation observed the ‘big shift in the mindset’ of the union through the repertoire of communicating the impact of the funding through ‘promoting success stories’ instead of advancing a discourse of resistance around the narrative of ‘our public schools are falling apart, that’s why we need more money’.

By transforming the neoliberal discourse on public education, the NSWTF effectively leveraged discursive power, reinforcing Bascia and Stevenson’s (2017) argument for strategies that counter a hegemonic deficit discourse of public education, and instead imbue prestige and esteem into the teaching profession. This is particularly crucial at a time when global education reform has instituted an ideological attack against the fundamental values upon which public education systems have been built (Bascia and Stevenson, 2017). By framing the campaign narrative around the care ethic of teachers, and pride in the values and purpose of public education, the NSWTF could collectivise teachers and promote critical thought around a pro-active agenda (Giroux, 1983; Lévesque and Murray, 2010). Hence, while being against something may draw individuals into organised action, frame transformation through a shift in discourse offered ‘cognitive liberation’, allowing individuals to be for something, which may sustain activism more effectively (McAdam, 1982; Stevenson, 2017).

Conclusion

The funding of education has been a significant political campaign and arguably one of the most enduring ideological battles in education. Through applying a power resources and capabilities framework (Lévesque and Murray, 2010, 2013), this article argues for renewing narrative resources and building discursive power to resist a discourse of derision of public services and the residualisation of public education advanced by neoliberal logics. While in the campaigns analysed, the NSWTF effectively drew on a traditional power resource (network embeddedness), which has been identified in other studies (e.g. Greiner and Jalette, 2016; Weiner, 2012) as crucial for the renewal of teacher' unions, on its own this power resource is insufficient in a neoliberal context that undermines the value of public education. New power resources, deploying strategic capabilities and expanded repertoires, are needed to build union power in a neoliberal context.

Neoliberalism has provided new opportunities for the transformation of narrative resources (Greiner and Jalette, 2016; Lévesque and Murray, 2013). As examined, renewing narrative resources is critical for winning the power to define the terms upon which the social world is perceived. While this article does not intend to underplay the relevance and effectiveness of other sources of power, it has emphasised the usefulness of and capacity to build discursive power within a neoliberal climate, underpinned by cognitive and interpretive frames that present solutions to identifiable problems. The concepts of governance, accountability, efficiency and markets are changing the way that we think about public institutions and public services (Apple, 2001). Contrary to current rhetoric, freedom within education is being constrained and democracy is being undermined by neoliberal logic (Apple, 2001). This article has argued that the ideological attack on public education and teachers’ work is located within a discourse of managerialism that challenges the fundamental values on which public education systems have been built (Bascia and Stevenson, 2017). Renewing framing capabilities emphasises the need to put forward alternatives to neoliberal visions, policies and practices (Apple, 2001; Greiner and Jalette, 2016; Stevenson, 2017). This requires an act of resistance to challenge the dominant discourse of inevitable, unstoppable marketisation and rejecting traditional explanations of school failure and binary messages of the private as ‘good’ and the public as ‘bad’, alongside a persuasive and inspiring vision of a better society (Bascia and Stevenson, 2017; Giroux, 1983). Necessarily, this strategy requires significant investment (of financial and other resources) to build discursive power. While in the campaigns analysed, important outcomes were achieved, such strategies are dependent on sufficient and sustainable union resourcing to be successful, requiring careful evaluation by unions.

While the findings of this article are necessarily limited to that of teachers' unions, broader generalisability may be possible to other unions representing essential workers. Future research could also deploy this conceptual framework to understand its utility for union success in industrial campaigns compared with strategies that utilise more coercive power.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the feedback provided by Professor Susan McGrath-Champ, Associate Professor Scott Fitzgerald, Associate Professor Kyoung-Hee Yu and Professor Al Rainnie on earlier versions of the article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mihajla Gavin

Notes

Biographical note

Mihajla Gavin, is a Lecturer in the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) Business School. She completed her PhD at the University of Sydney in 2019, which examined how teacher trade unions have responded to neoliberal education reform. Her current research focuses on the restructuring of teachers' work and conditions of work in the public sector, worker voice, and women and employment relations. Prior to commencing her academic career, she was a senior officer at the Fair Work Ombudsman and held various advisory, research, policy and project roles.

References

Alter

(2013) ’It felt like community’: Social movement unionism and the Chicago Teachers Union strike of 2012. Labor: Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas 10(3): 11–25.

Apple

(2001) Educating the ‘Right’ Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

Armstrong

(2003) Spaced Out: Policy , Difference and the Challenge of Inclusive Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2018) Australian Demographic Statistics, June 2018. Cat. No. 3101.0. Available at: http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/D56C4A3E41586764CA2581A70015893E?Opendocument (accessed 25 January 2019).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2020) Schools. 6 February 2020. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release#students (accessed 17 December 2020).

Australian Education Union (AEU) (2016) Getting Results: Gonski Funding in Australian Schools. Melbourne: Australian Education Union (AEU).

Bascia

Stevenson

(2017) Organising Teaching: Developing the Power. Brussels: Education International.

Battin

(2017) Labouring under neoliberalism: The Australian Labor government’s ideological constraint, 2007–2013. The Economic and Labor Relations Review 28(1): 146–163.

Benford

Snow

(2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26(1): 611–639.

10.

Bonnor

(2014) Committee Hansard , private capacity. 1 May, 35.

11.

Bryman

(2008) Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

12.

Camfield

(2007) Renewal in Canadian public sector unions: Neoliberalism and union praxis. Industrial Relations 62(2): 282–304.

13.

Campbell

Proctor

(2014) A History of Australian Schooling. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

14.

Connell

(2015) Markets all around: Defending education in a neoliberal time. In: Proctor H, Brownlee P and Freebody P (eds) Controversies in Education: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Policy and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 181–197.

15.

Darlington

(2009) Leadership and union militancy: The case of the RMT. Capital & Class 33(3): 3–32.

16.

Esson

Vinson

Johnston

(2002) Inquiry into the Provision of Public Education in NSW: Report of the ‘Vinson Inquiry’. Annandale: Pluto Press Australia.

17.

Fitzgerald S, McGrath-Champ S, Stacey M, et al. (2019) Intensification of teachers' work under devolution: A ‘tsunami’ of paperwork. Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5): 613--636.

18.

Forsey

(2014) The school in the state and the state in the school: The social re-production of education systems in a mobile modernity. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 17(3): 95–112.

19.

Forster

(1994) The analysis of company documentation. In: Cassell C and Symon G (eds) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE, pp. 147–166.

20.

Fox Piven

Cloward

(2000) Power repertoires and globalization. Politics and Society 28(3): 413–430.

21.

Gavin M (2019) Working industrially or professionally? What strategies should teacher unions use to improve teacher salaries in neoliberal times? Labour and Industry 29(1): 19--33.

22.

Giroux

(1983) Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey.

23.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

24.

Gonski

Boston

Greiner

et al. (2011) Review of Funding for Schooling, Final Report, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Australia. Available at: https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf (accessed 25 January 2021).

25.

Greiner

Jalette

(2016) Austerity as an opportunity for union revival: Quebec public school teachers. The Economic and Labor Relations Review 27(1): 64–80.

26.

Gumbrell-McCormick

Hyman

(2013) Trade Unions in Western Europe: Hard Times , Hard Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27.

Helsby

(1999) Changing Teachers’ Work. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

28.

Hogan

Thompson

(2019) The quasi-marketization of Australian public schooling: Affordances and contradictions of the new work order. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 39(3): 391–403.

29.

Høgedahl

Ibsen

(2017) New terms for collective action in the public sector in Denmark: Lessons learned from the teacher lock-out in 2013. Journal of Industrial Relations 59(5): 593–610.

30.

Hursh

(2007) Assessing no child left behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal 44(3): 493–518.

31.

Johnson

Shields

(2007) Lessons from management-union partnership in teacher performance appraisal in the New South Wales public education system. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18(7): 1214–1247.

32.

Johnston

(1994) Success while Others Fail: Social Movement Unionism and the Public Workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

33.

Kelly

(2015) Trade union membership and power in comparative perspective. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(4): 526–44.

34.

Lamb

Jackson

Walstab

, et al. (2015) Educational Opportunity in Australia 2015: Who Succeeds and Who Misses Out. Melbourne: Mitchell Institute.

35.

Lévesque

Murray

(2010) Understanding union power: Resources and capabilities for renewing union capacity. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 16(3): 333–350.

36.

Lévesque

Murray

(2013) Renewing union narrative resources: How union capabilities make a difference. British Journal of Industrial Relations 51(4): 777–796.

37.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

38.

Lundahl

Erixon Arreman

Holm

, et al. (2013) Educational marketization the Swedish way. Education Inquiry 4(3): 497–517.

39.

McAdam

(1982) Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

40.

McAlevey

(2016) No Shortcuts: Organising for Power in the New Gilded Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

41.

McCrystal

(2019) Why is it so hard to take lawful strike action in Australia? Journal of Industrial Relations 61(1): 129–144.

42.

McGuire

(2014) Analysing union power, opportunity and strategic capability: Global and local union struggles against the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Global Labour Journal 5(1): 45–67.

43.

Murray

(2017) Union renewal: What can we learn from three decades of research? Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 23(1): 9–29.

44.

Noakes

Johnston

(2005) Frames of protest: A road map to a perspective. In: Johnston H and Noakes J (eds) Frames of Protest: Social Movements and the Framing Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 1–29.

45.

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) (2000) Public Education Lobbies – A national awakening? Education, 11 December, 14.

46.

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) (2002) Public Education Campaign. Education, 11 February, 18.

47.

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) (2005) Kindergarten class size reduction implemented. Education, 7 March, 1.

48.

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) (2010) National Agenda: Schools Funding Review. Annual Conference decisions.

49.

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) (2011) Schools funding review. Executive Minutes, 18 October.

50.

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) (2012) The 2012 Annual Report of the NSW Teachers' Federation. Marrickville, Australia.

51.

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) (2013) Federal funding campaign. Annual conference decisions.

52.

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) (2014) The 2014 Annual Report of the NSW Teachers' Federation. Marrickville, Australia.

53.

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) (2017) The 2017 Annual Report of the NSW Teachers' Federation. Surry Hills, Australia.

54.

New South Wales Department of Education (2017) Annual Report 2016. Sydney: NSW Department of Education.

55.

O’Brien

(1987) A Divided Unity! Politics of NSW Teacher Militancy since 1945. North Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

56.

Ross S and Savage L (2013) Introduction: Public sector unions in the age of austerity. In: Ross S and Savage L (eds) Public Sector Unions in the Age of Austerity. Black Point: Fernwood Publishing, pp. 9–17.

57.

Sahlberg

(2016) The Global Educational Reform Movement and its impact on schooling. In: Mundy M, Green A, Lingard B, et al. (eds) The Handbook of Global Education Policy. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

58.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(2007) Research Methods for Business Students. 4th ed. London: Pearson.

59.

Sherington

Hughes

(2012) Education. In: Clune D and Smith R (eds) From Carr to Keneally: Labor in office in NSW 1995–2011. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, pp. 138–149.

60.

Silver

(2003) Forces of Labor. Workers’ Movements and Globalization since 1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

61.

Snow

Rochford

Worden

, et al. (1986) Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51(4): 464–481.

62.

Stevenson

(2017) The “datafication” of teaching: Can teachers speak back to the numbers? Peabody Journal of Education 92(4): 537–557.

63.

Stevenson

(2018) Understanding schools as organizations and the role of organized teachers: Perspectives on teachers’ work and teacher unions. In: Connolly M, Eddy-Spicer DH, James C, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of School Organization. London: SAGE.

64.

Szabó

(2020) Professionals on the road to contention: Social movement unionism in healthcare labour disputes across Europe. Economic and Industrial Democracy. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/0143831X20903090

65.

Tarrow

(2005) The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

66.

Tattersall

(2009) A little help from our friends: Exploring and understanding when labor-community coalitions are likely to form. Labor Studies Journal 34(4): 485–506.

67.

Thomas

Tufts

(2016) ‘ Enabling dissent’: Contesting austerity and right populism in Toronto, Canada. Economic and Labour Relations Review 27(1): 29–45.

68.

Vickers

(2005) In the common good: The need for a new approach to funding Australia’s schools. Australian Journal of Education 49(3): 264–277.

69.

Weiner

(2012) Social movement unionism: Teachers can lead the way. Race, Poverty & the Environment 19(2): 37–40.

70.

Wright

(2000) Working-class power, capitalist-class interests and class compromise. American Journal of Sociology 105(4): 957–1002.

71.

Yates

(2010) Understanding caring, organizing women: How framing a problem shapes union strategy. Transfer 16(3): 399–410.

72.

Yin

(2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.