Well being in educational Context

To draw conclusion upon insights in terms of perception of educators including principals, teachers, students as well as existing policies of education system, recognition theory and childhood studies are evaluated by exploring some articles. For this purpose, a detailed understanding is developed on ‘well-being’ of students in primary and secondary schools with respect to concern of students, teachers and educational policy makers.

Legislations link to well-being and their impact on programs, policies and practices within educational context

As per opinion of Lubans and et. al. (2016), it has evaluated that due to rapid changes in landscape of educational governance within Australia, in terms of primarily state jurisdiction to enhance commonwealth responsibility, educational system has completely modified. Now, legislations related to educational policy, programs and practices, mostly focus on well-being, safety, behaviour and personal care. In educational policies scope, amount and focuses of ‘Well-being’ are varied as per State and Catholic education.

It is mainly linked with problem-concerned discourses related to safety or harm and mental health of students. Through point of view of Tanaka and Johnson (2016), it has identified that for well-being, teachers, students and school authorities, all pay equal and an important role. Majority of educators are believed that well-being of student is central to their work.

Similarly, students are hereby also strongly agreed for the same, that their well-being is also important to respective teachers. This would lend towards identification of schools, educational policy, programs and practices. It also act as key places to promote well-being of children. Therefore, Australian Government is actively concerned on how educational policies, programs and practices in primary and secondary schools could be more positively impact on well-being of students (Tanaka and Johnson, 2016). In this regard, the ways in which well-being is conceptualised under educational policy and practice, have clear implications for the manner, in which it is implemented and approached in schools. Well-being in educational institution is also perceived as grounded and multidimensional in relationships by education providers, students, principals, students as well as some policy-related documentation.

Through research it has also evaluated that when teachers and other educators understand the concept of students' well-being as multidimensional, that includes certain factors of importance of care and valuing them. It covers concern, safety, psychological, affection, social, relational and other environmental aspects. Thus, need for ensuring well-being of students is foregrounded as well as explicitly, which is considered in all aspects of school life.

As per article given by Charlotte Danielson, it has evaluated that educational polities and practices are made to organise student's experiences, within organisations (Policies and Practices Affecting Students, 2019). These policies are also help in structuring the relationship of parents, especially of younger ones with educational department for their well-being. With this regard, educators to frame policies as per well-being of students, concern on developing a safe and positive environment, career development orientation, a culture of learning, respect, responsiveness and hard work etc.

According to views of Butler and Muir (2017), it has analysed that to set a vision and guiding principles for educational department, Government of Australia has established the Well-being Framework (The Australian Student Well-being Framework, 2018).

It is also known as The Australian Student Well-being Framework which refers to a foundational document to support school communities for building positive learning environments. It also concern on reviewing current safety as well as as well-being policies and support requirements, for promoting a culture of learning (Slee and Skrzypiec, 2016). These principles are endorsed by Ministers of Education through educational authorities, council with input from Australian States and Territories, a range of domestic and international experts. In addition to this, it is also aligned to all states and national well-being for teachers, principles and other educators. These frameworks are mostly on evidences which recognise linkages among student well-being, safety and learning outcomes.

In Australia, international students are carefully safeguarded by a variety of legislative measures and educational authorities, work within universities and institutions. These laws includes Education Services for Overseas Students Act (ESOS) 2000, The National Code, AusAid, English Proficiency Requirement and more. These acts are set out the legal framework, which govern delivery of education to International students in Australia, give protection to them and promote learning as well to study.

As per opinion of Bradshaw (2016), it has evaluated that ESOS Act 2000 mainly protects the rights of overseas students who are coming for studies.

It includes rights to receive information about courses of their interest, fees, modes of study, before enrolment. Along with this, they have to sign a written document before paying sees with institution about terms and conditions related to refund. Thus, it has evaluated that this legislation is helpful in making adjustment of foreign students and fulfil their every requirement. The objectives of ESOS are well founded as well as it also provides a sound regulatory structure.

However, it has evaluated that the current environment within educational institution has decisively shown that this act needs to be strengthened (Kendig and et. al., 2016). It has to applied by regulators in more consistent and rigorous manner.

Therefore, compliance as well as enforcement efforts have to be stepped up, because rapid changes and growth of international education is not matched with commensurate increase within resourcing of regulatory functions. This would shows the negative consequences of ESOS which has to be modified.

In context with Australian Qualification Frameworks (AQF) 1995, it specifies the level of standards for educations and administered by Australian Government's Department of Industry. It is a national policy which incorporates the qualification within each training and education sector into a single comprehensive national qualifications. According to Kairuz and et. al. (2016), it has analysed that as significant changes are required for restoring reputation on this country for higher quality of education and training. Therefore, Government needs to focus on quality and student experience as well as their well-being instead of volume and dollars. Today in 21^st century, education demands more on developing a student-centric approach.

Educational system needs to be challenging, emerging and rewarding. In addition to this, it should be flexible and responsive as per needs of learners, students, employers and the community. Therefore, to achieve this, Government has to create modifications within Australian Qualification Framework where, environment within educational institution should be positive and supportive. This would enable students to achieve and anticipate their full potential.

It has argued as per perception of Hildenbrand and et. al. (2017), that within some sector frameworks, AQF, is not well-equipped in international education for regulating providers. It can be argued here that as per comparison with arrangement in primary or higher education sectors, entry to the VET (vocational) market is relatively much easy. This would show certain limitations of legislations within ESOS, AQF and different frameworks of Australian acts.

In this regard, to stop bullying, discrimination, harassment and violence etc. type of activities, which may occur due to cross culture environment at educational institutions, Australian Government has also established some commonwealth legislations. It includes Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and Racial Hatred Act 1995.

These acts are concerned to develop effective educational system where, all residential and non-residential can give opportunity to get equal rights and education for well-being (Ullman and Ferfolja, 2016). Thus, any change in laws and legislations, impact directly on policies, programs and practices, which are made to promote education and learning in institutions.

Australian Department of Education are mostly focuses on developing policies and practices to provide- Safe, disciplined and supportive educational environment procedures; Inclusive educational policy; Positive behaviour for learning; Code of school behaviour; Supporting mental health and well-being policy of students etc.

According to opinion of Kerry Robinson, it has analysed that areas where legislations should be made more effectively under education are – Sex Education (Responsibilities, tensions and ways forward: parents’ perspectives on children’s sexuality education, 2018). Due to controversial nature of this topic, communities and parents think that sexuality based education is totally irrelevant, risky and dangerous for primary children, inappropriate for well-being and development. They concern more about who will give education and in what manner. Children’s sexuality education is constantly to be troubled with tensions and controversies. But  rather than some consequence, access to sexuality education for children is also essential for development of sexual citizenship.

This would help in developing awareness and understanding among children about intimate relationship. Here, tensions are concerned in terms of how context is addressed, time dedicated to discuss this topic and who will be taught it in a definite manner.

Therefore, under primary school aged children sectors, it has explored that perception of parents and societies of the relevance and importance of sexuality education is primarily concerned when teach about this topic. Secondly to develop programs and practices for giving sex education, views of guardians on who should be responsible for giving sexuality education to their young ones; implications of these findings on children minds and more, are focused more in Australian primary schooling.

But due to increase in criminal activities like child sexual abusiveness, it becomes highly essential to Business entail student of young and adolescent age about such activities. This would help them in preventing themselves from harassment and bullying activities.

In Australia, primary education and curriculum activities have been the traditional responsibility of states and territories in individual manner. Currently, here a National Curriculum has been developed, which includes a Health and Physical Education syllabus (Kairuz and et. al., 2016). This course covers primarily topic about relationships and sexuality education, where children belong to 1 to 2 years age group learn about body parts, changes, emotions and protective behaviours.

While children under age  group of 3 to 4, provide earlier education based on respecting diversity i.e. gender, gender expression and sexuality. While for 5 and 6 years, emphasised more on giving education about identity, transitions towards puberty, managing and initiating relationships as well as valuing diversity (Kendig and et. al., 2016). But here, tension is occurred on the basis of understanding to what extent sex education is taught to children of primarily age.

Therefore, policies and practices related to such education is mostly dependent on legislations prevailing under primary sectors, including concern and perception of parents and communities. Therefore, for implementation sexuality education policies in primary schools, Government of Victoria and New South Wales has collaborated with parents, community health organisations and schools to develop policies accordingly.

As teachers are integral for better life of students therefore, accessing their views always remains important to develop educational policies accordingly. Therefore, to cater needs of international and national students for well-being, childhood studies related the way in which children are theorised. This study helps in analysing a conceptual shift to observe kids as a passive victims of life experience towards social factors, having own views to cope up with life challenging roles. Similarly, recognition theory provides alternative framework to conceptualise the way well-being is understood and practices within educational institution (Butler and Muir, 2017).

It includes concept of self-actualisation, social justice and inequality, that focus mostly on importance and role of human interaction with society and external environment. According to Slee and Skrzypiec (2016), recognition theory includes three main concern for well-being of patients as- rights, love and solidarity.

Here, love relates to emotional concern for students' well-being; rights for developing moral accountability of legal person; solidarity for evaluation of particular abilities, contribution and achievements in despite of norms. For career development initiatives and mechanism to aid students from first standard till twelfth, The Wellbeing Framework provides best-practice advice to school communities (Lubans and et. al., 2016). It includes five key elements for well-being of students as given below:

• Leadership: To build positive learning environment in educational institutions, principals and school leaders play a crucial role, whereby all associated educators and students feel connected, safe and respected.
• Inclusion:In developing safe learning environment and culture, all members of the school community are actively participates, which concerns more on values and diversity as well as fosters respectful and positive relationships.
• Student Voice:Learners (students) are also actively participates in building their own learning and well-being by giving respect to educators and feel connected with them in respectful and resilient manner.
• Partnerships:For developing ambient environment under education institutions, families and communities also work as collaborative partners to support student well-being, learning and safety.
• Support:All associated persons that are educators, authorities, school staff, students, communities and families share and develop policies for well-being and support for positive behaviour.

Therefore, for fulfiliing above requirments, Australian Government seeks to develop more effective legislation to attract bright and capable students, by providing good education and train them in repective areas of interest and expertise (Kendig and et. al., 2016). In context with enhancing standard of education, all courses which are offered to overseas students are registered within Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS), which  is established under ESOS Act.

Along with this, The ESOS framework also stifles some innovative opportunities for international students for engage them in flexible teaching practices. Here, for  an instance, Standard 9 of NCP (National Code of Practice) for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007, is established to allow overseas students can undertake upto 25% of their course by distance learning or online.

Similarly, another example in context with higher education provider is part C of National Code (Ullman and Ferfolja, 2016). This law permits courses to be registered only with a work experience component, if it is necessary to gain the qualification as per standard. The main reason behind this amendment is need of specific requirements which are associated with courses for overseas students. It assits to international student to be in Australia because majority of course can be delivered only by face to face learning procedure.

Along with this, these courses must be completed within a certain or specified duration (Tanaka and Johnson, 2016). Thus, this kind of approach of Australian Qualification Framework supports the integrity of the international student visa program, which is only granted for the purpose of studying within Australia.

References

• Bradshaw, J. ed., 2016. The Well-being of Children in the UK. Policy Press.
• Butler, R. and Muir, K., 2017. Young people’s education biographies: family relationships, social capital and belonging. Journal of Youth Studies. 20(3). pp.316-331.
• Hildenbrand, C. and et. al., 2017. Children’s mathematical and verbal competence in different early education and care programmes in Australia. Journal of Early Childhood Research. 15(2). pp.144-157.
• Kairuz and et. al., 2016. Consequences of KPIs and performance management in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management. 30(6). pp.881-893.
• Kendig, H. and et. al., 2016. Pathways to well-being in later life: Socioeconomic and health determinants across the life course of Australian baby boomers. Journal of population ageing. 9(1-2). pp.49-67.
• Lubans, D. R. and et. al., 2016. Mediators of psychological well-being in adolescent boys. Journal of Adolescent Health. 58(2). pp.230-236.
• Slee, P. T. and Skrzypiec, G., 2016. Well-being, positive peer relations and bullying in school settings. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• Tanaka, K. and Johnson, N. E., 2016. Childlessness and mental well-being in a global context. Journal of family issues. 37(8). pp.1027-1045.
• Ullman, J. and Ferfolja, T., 2016. The Elephant in the (Class) Room: Parental Perceptions of LGBTQ-Inclusivity in K-12 Educational Contexts. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 41(10). pp.15-29.

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit