Calls are mounting for the Federal Government to release the findings of an independent evaluation of Australia’s peak, government-backed research body, arguing that if teachers must follow its advice, everyone deserves to see whether it works.

When the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) was established in April 2021, it came with a $50m commitment, and joint government funding has flowed into it every year since.

In mid-2025, the Federal Government commissioned KPMG to evaluate how the organisation was performing. The review, which cost taxpayers $420,951.74, was completed and handed over in April of that year. However, the findings of that review have been kept from the very professionals it impacts the most.

When a Freedom of Information request sought its release, it was refused on the grounds that disclosure might “undermine confidence” in AERO’s work.

On 29 September, Tom Mahoney, a Deakin University PhD candidate and VCE teacher, launched a petition calling for the report’s release. As of the time of publishing, the petition has received more than 600 signatures.

“Disheartened by a lack of democratic process in relation to the public release of KPMG’s evaluation of AERO, a number of us decided to do something about it,” Mahoney wrote in a statement posted on his LinkedIn page on 2 October.

“We believe that the KPMG report on the effectiveness of AERO’s contributions to Australian education must be released immediately, to gain public trust and ensure the integrity of educational organisations operating in Australia.”

‘Ultimately indefensible’

Speaking to The Educator, Mahoney said the withholding of KPMG’s evaluation of AERO  is “ultimately indefensible considering AERO’s commitment to transparency, accountability and evidence.”

“Among the reasons for refusing the release of the review was the potential for reputational harm, which doesn’t hold up for an organisation that proclaims itself to ‘welcome scrutiny to enhance the integrity’ of their work,” Mahoney said. “By continuing to refuse the release of this review, we risk undermining public faith in our educational institutions that ought to serve in the best interests of the community at large.”

Mahoney said this ultimately comes down to “a commitment in the principles of integrity and accountability.”

“In the same way that we expect leaders and teachers in schools to be accountable to the communities they serve, so too ought we hold our educational organisations to the same standards,” he said. “Especially considering the large influence AERO has had in directing educational policy and practice across the country since it began operating.”

Clare urged to break the deadlock

Ben Sacco, Managing Director of Education Economy, a national education consultancy, is a signatory of the petition. He said there’s no reason Federal Education Minister Jason Clare can’t push the states and territories to release the review’s findings.

“The Commonwealth may require agreement from the states and territories, but Jason Clare also chairs the Education Ministers Meeting,” Sacco told The Educator. “That places him in a position to demonstrate national leadership by bringing ministers together, seeking agreement and explaining what is preventing the report’s release.”

Sacco said while he understands that Clare’s hands have been tied by the refusal of the states and territories to release the report’s findings, what remains unclear is why that agreement hasn’t been reached and what steps have been taken to resolve the matter.

“I appreciate that intergovernmental agreements and processes need to be respected, but those arrangements shouldn’t prevent transparency about how decisions are made,” he said.

“If governments are collectively responsible for decisions concerning publicly funded research, the public should reasonably expect to understand the reasons behind those decisions and who is accountable for them.”

‘An act of blind institutional faith’

Adam Voigt is Founder and CEO of Real Schools, a national school culture organisation partnering with approximately 370 Australian schools, said it is “patently unfair” to Principals to hide the full details of what they’re being mandated to implement. 

“The public funded this arbitrarily established advisory body and then we funded the review. But we can’t apparently be trusted see it because of what it might say,” Voigt told The Educator. “In that context, conditioning school funding on AERO-aligned practice is not an evidence-based policy position.”

Voigt said it is better described as act of “blind institutional faith” that is being demanded of principals who have no basis on which to extend it.

“That is not how a government accountable to the public should operate and it is not how a profession as important as teaching should be led,” he said.

Voigt is also concerned that AERO’s ties to the lobbying groups behind its creation, and its partnership with MultiLit, a company selling the programs it lists in its guidance, were never clearly disclosed, leaving school leaders unsure how much weight its advice deserves.

The case for a national research register 

Sacco has called for every Australian education department to create and maintain “a publicly accessible register of commissioned research, identifying the report title, author, commissioning agency, cost, completion date and publication status.”

He says the most meaningful difference this register would make is a fundamental shift in how Australians think about transparency, accountability and the role of evidence in shaping education policy.

“At present, governments can commission research using public money without the public necessarily knowing what was commissioned, how much it cost, whether it was completed or why it hasn’t been released,” he said. “A publicly accessible register would change that.”

Sacco said the register would “establish transparency as a standard expectation rather than something the public has to continually request.”

“It would also make it easier to scrutinise public expenditure, identify duplication and better understand the evidence informing government decisions,” he said.

“More importantly, it would help create a culture where publicly funded research is recognised as a public asset, not just a government document. Over time, this could strengthen public trust in education research and policy development.”

‘Trust requires transparency’

Voigt said AERO should make three significant public disclosures to ensure public and school sector confidence.

“First, simply release the KPMG review. The argument for suppression – that transparency might damage confidence – has it backwards. Confidence is built by transparency, not protected by concealment,” he said.

Second, Voigt said AERO should set out the full nature of its relationship with MultiLit, a commercial literacy provider.

The Educator understands that MultiLit’s only collaboration with AERO was a contractual arrangement, fully disclosed at the time, to develop practice guides for students with diverse needs. That work was completed alongside the Institute of Special Educators, which specialises in special education provision in Australia. The guides contain no information about MultiLit’s programs and were independently peer-reviewed under AERO’s publication process.

Voigt also pointed out that many school leaders are unaware members of MultiLit’s founding team also lead the MultiLit Research Unit, which conducts much of the research into the company’s own programs. In his view, this raises questions about potential conflicts of interest that warrant clearer disclosure.

However, publicly available information shows the arrangement is no secret. The MultiLit website states that its directors lead the Research Unit, and those dual roles are noted in the unit’s publications.

“The school leaders I speak with are not opposed to explicit literacy instruction and nor am I,” Voigt said, adding that many had told him they felt pressured to adopt MultiLit’s programs.

It is also understood that AERO has not recommended MultiLit’s programs. Even so, Voigt believes school leaders are “simply asking a fair question” about how to weigh AERO’s guidance where commercial relationships are involved. “They deserve a straight answer,” he said.

Voigt said the third disclosure should concern the organisations that advocated for AERO’s establishment, which he said held strong views on particular instructional approaches.

“Who those organisations were, what access they had, and what influence they exercised over AERO’s founding mandate has never been transparently disclosed. It should be,” he said.

Voigt said school leaders are being asked to trust AERO’s advice, but that trust requires transparency.

“At the moment, they are being offered neither.”

AERO and the office of Federal Education Minister Jason Clare have been contacted for comment.

Source Article: The Educator Australia