28 Sept 2025

Australian research exposes mental health crisis among teachers

Sue Phillips


Two significant studies this year have revealed a mounting crisis within the education sector in Australia, with teachers facing severe mental health challenges.

The research shows the toll being taken by crushing workloads and prolonged exposure to student and family trauma. The studies paint a grim picture of a profession under immense strain, with dire implications for teacher retention and student outcomes.

Thousands of South Australian teachers on strike, November 9, 2023. [Photo: Facebook/Australian Education Union (SA)]

The first study, entitled Teachers’ workload, turnover intentions, and mental health, was conducted by a research team from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and the Black Dog Institute, a renowned mental health research institution. Surveying nearly 5,000 Australian primary and secondary teachers in 2022–24, it is one of the most comprehensive investigations into the mental health of educators to date.

The study found that teachers were experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress at levels three times the national average. For instance, the average score for depressive symptoms on the Depression, Anxiety & Stress Scale (DASS) among teachers was 15.40, compared to a population norm of 5.02. Anxiety symptoms were at 12.12 versus 3.36 and stress at 21.80 versus 8.10.

The research said 90.7 percent of teachers reported moderate-to-extremely severe levels of stress. Furthermore, nearly 70 percent of participants reported moderate-to-extremely severe symptoms of both depression (70.5 percent) and anxiety (68.9 percent).

A central cause was unmanageable workload. The research made a distinction between the “core” work of teaching—planning and delivering lessons—and the ballooning “non-core” tasks that now dominate teachers’ time. These included administrative duties, excessive data collection and tracking, and compliance with various policies and accountability frameworks.

Some 68.8 percent of teachers surveyed rated their workload as “largely unmanageable” or “completely unmanageable.” The study’s analysis established a clear chain reaction: a higher, unmanageable workload was positively correlated with greater levels of depressive symptoms, which, in turn, were strongly correlated with higher intentions to leave the profession.

Lead researcher Dr. Helena Granziera noted that teachers were not overwhelmed by teaching itself, but by the mounting load of non-core tasks, driving burnout and disillusionment. The consequences were severe: clinical-level depression and anxiety that diminished quality of life, impaired daily functioning and, in the schools, reduced performance, increased absenteeism, and worsened teacher shortages. This also undermined classroom quality and student outcomes, creating a ripple effect that threatens an entire generation.

The second study, published in May, The Silent Cost: Impact and Management of Secondary Trauma in Educators, revealed another serious threat to teacher mental health: secondary traumatic stress (STS). Led by Dr. Adam Fraser in collaboration with Deakin University, this research surveyed almost 2,300 educators and collected over 1,000 detailed trauma stories.

The study said educators had effectively become the “social workers of society,” yet the education system was dramatically under-prepared and under-resourced to support educators. STS occurs from repeated exposure to the traumatic experiences of others. For teachers, this involves consistently hearing students’ distressing personal stories, witnessing their struggles, and carrying the emotional burden of their challenges.

The report explained that this exposure is qualitatively different from that experienced by other frontline professionals. As research collaborator Christine Armarego explained, the prolonged nature of the teacher-student relationship is a crucial factor. Unlike a paramedic’s brief interaction, a teacher knows a student and their family context for an entire year or longer, leading to a deeper and more sustained emotional investment.

The study found that teachers are not only supporting students but often entire families, as parents turn to them for guidance on complex issues, further expanding their emotional labour. Educators reported STS levels 21 percent higher than psychologists, 23 percent higher than mental health nurses and 34 percent higher than paramedics.

Despite the intensity of this impact, most educators received no formal support or training to manage STS.

Statements from educators are scattered throughout the report. One educator who had worked in a language centre for refugees stated: “War, murder, trauma, deaths at sea of siblings, violence, despair, self-harm, racism… there was so much these kids had to deal with. I didn’t realise the impact until I took leave. I have anxiety and more self-doubt than previously.”

Another, working in a Schools for Specific Purposes (SSP) setting, dealing with children with disabilities, autism, mental health and behavioural disorders, said eight students had passed away since she began working there. She said:

“Another hard part of working in an SSP is seeing student self-harm. Working closely with students that hurt themselves is so hard to do. You feel helpless when it happens and it happens multiple times a day, hitting themselves, hitting their head on the floor, pulling out their fingernails, picking at their cuts to make them worse. It is mentally exhausting and physically draining.”

The study found that STS accumulated over an educator’s career, contradicting the belief that experience builds resilience. Nearly 40 percent of the participants were considering leaving the profession due to overwhelming STS.

“When we started this research, no one in education was talking about STS—it was all about burnout and general wellbeing,” Fraser explained. He said STS was deeper than burnout, combining with it to lead to compassion fatigue, a debilitating state that drains empathy and leaves educators emotionally disconnected.

“It’s the cost of witnessing student trauma day after day, with no buffer, no outlet, and no support,” he explained. One of the most pressing difficulties was the lack of accessible services to support traumatised students—leaving teachers to shoulder the burden alone.

Research found that only one undergraduate program in Australia addressed STS, leaving new educators unaware of its emotional toll.

Taken together, the two studies show that teachers are being crushed by an ever-expanding administrative workload, while also being asked to deal with the increasing and complex social and emotional traumas of their students and families, a role for which they are largely untrained and unsupported.

The UNSW research also reported that rural and remote teachers reported far higher levels of depression than those in metropolitan schools. These communities, already disadvantaged by distance and scarce resources, were those where teachers struggled most.

The studies did not directly link traumatic stress to school socio-economic status, but in working-class communities teachers carry a heavier emotional load. With little systemic support, these schools are hit twice—by the hardships they face and by the erosion of the workforce.

The studies show that these conditions are worsening under the Albanese Labor government and its state counterparts. They continue to cut public education funding in real terms while funneling billions into elite private schools and pouring billions more into military programs like AUKUS.

The teacher unions have played a pivotal role in enforcing these conditions. Through sell-out agreements on wages, workloads, and class sizes, they have not only suppressed resistance but also been complicit in exacerbating the crisis facing teachers. Other than advising that teachers report their conditions to the Education Department, they encourage teachers to take courses on classroom management—placing at the feet of individual educators the responsibility of dealing with the myriad social conditions of their charges. While posturing as defenders of educators they function as enforcers for government and corporate demands.

The problems go deeper, rooted in a capitalist system that prioritises profit over social need. While the studies call for reforms, what is required goes far beyond policy adjustments. The struggle for decent public education—and for healthcare and other essential rights—inevitably collides with the dictates of big business and finance capital.

Trump signs executive order approving takeover of TikTok by US investment consortium

Kevin Reed


On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order approving the TikTok divestiture plan, allowing the popular social media app to continue operating in the US under majority ownership by American investors, including tech company Oracle, private equity firm Silver Lake, and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

The order implements requirements from a bipartisan national security law passed by Congress in 2024 mandating Chinese parent ByteDance to reduce its US ownership to less than 20 percent, with the remaining shares divided among an American investor consortium and ByteDance’s previous stakeholders.

The executive order states:

A plan has been presented to me to undergo a qualified divestiture of TikTok’s United States operations, as outlined in a framework agreement (Framework Agreement).  Under this Framework Agreement, TikTok’s United States application will be operated by a newly established joint venture based in the United States.  It will be majority-owned and controlled by United States persons and will no longer be controlled by any foreign adversary, since ByteDance Ltd. and its affiliates will own less than 20 percent of the entity, with the remainder being held by certain investors (Investor Parties).

The order formalizes the establishment of a new joint venture controlling TikTok’s US assets, including its highly valued recommendation algorithm, and establishes “protections” for American user data.

The idea that the US government and its corporate partners are going to safeguard the data of Americans is an absurdity. As documented by Edward Snowden in 2013, illegal military-intelligence surveillance of the electronic communications and internet activity of the US public, with the support of the telecommunications industry, has been going on for decades.

The TikTok agreement extends the deadline for enforcement of the ban on the platform contained in the original language of the Congressional legislation, moving it from September 16 to December 16, 2025, to allow time for the deal to be finalized with China.

Trump’s directive says the proposed takeover of TikTok upholds Congressional demands for “qualified divestiture,” with most board members being American, and adds that approval by Chinese authorities is required before completion.

The takeover of TikTok’s US operations was triggered by anti-China hysteria whipped up by both parties of US imperialism over the past five years. Presided over by the Trump administration, the deal includes a multibillion-dollar government fee as a condition of the transfer.

The deal amounts to a seizure of the Chinese-based app by the US tech oligarchy. While ByteDance, the Chinese parent company, will retain a stake of just under 20 percent (19.9), the US investors are putting up 45 percent of the investment, about $6 or $7 billion, and the balance of 35 percent will be provided by the former ByteDance investors. The total value of the TikTok’s US assets have been estimated at approximately $14 billion.

The agreement, portions of which were made public last week, would see ownership of TikTok’s technical platform, infrastructure and recommendation algorithm transition to the US consortium.

Cloud and business software giant Oracle (stock market value of $828 billion), private equity giant Silver Lake ($104 billion in assets under management), the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz ($46 billion in committed capital) are taking ownership alongside anticipated additions, such as Fox Corp. and technology magnates Michael Dell and Lachlan Murdoch, as well as the Abu Dhabi-based MGX.

The participation of the wide range of partners in the deal is a measure of the capitalist feeding frenzy underway. All the participants in the project, whether they are part of the technical aspects of the takeover or not, are expecting a significant return on their investment.

The platform’s powerful recommendation algorithm, which is credited with driving the app’s explosive popularity, will be transferred in code form and re-engineered in the US. The US consortium will have exclusive control over retraining and deploying the algorithm for American users. While ByteDance maintains a substantial minority interest, it loses all access and oversight of user data and algorithm modifications in the US.

Although the exact amount and structure of the fee are not public, a major condition of the deal is the unprecedented multibillion-dollar payment to the US government. Among all the new American partners, Oracle’s role is the most technically and politically significant. Already the designated host of TikTok’s US cloud data through Project Texas, Oracle is to become the app’s algorithm overseer and security authority, directly managing the code and its retraining for American users.

This move, the product of months of negotiation and direct White House participation, is portrayed as an answer to “national security” claims and congressional agitation over Chinese access to user data and digital influence.

The specifics of each investor’s financial commitment have also not all been publicly disclosed. However, Oracle’s new stake comes on top of its lucrative data-hosting contract. In leveraging Oracle’s connections—the company’s founder Larry Ellison is a major Trump supporter—the deal provides not just continuity of service but explicit corporate command over the recommendation engine.

The value and investment draw of TikTok lies in its remarkable popularity among American youth and its broad cultural reach. As of 2025, it boasts more than 170 million American users, a user base claimed to have played a role in the 2024 presidential election.

Although he began his 2024 campaign denouncing Chinese ownership of TikTok in xenophobic terms, Trump shifted his position as he began using it to spread his fascist political ideology. The shift underscores the calculated effort to turn what was once a propaganda campaign over “national security” into a massive business opportunity for the American financial oligarchy while also continuing to whip up anti-Chinese sentiments.

Indeed, much of the justification for the transaction is grounded in fear-mongering about foreign manipulation, data theft and hostile influence. These narratives, stoked by both major parties, provided the political cover required to advance what is, ultimately, a theft of a cultural giant by the US financial elite led by the gangster-in-chief in the White House.

If it is finalized, the current deal represents the end point of a years-long effort to ban TikTok that reached a peak in 2020. Trump’s executive orders sought first to shutter the app and then to force its sale to a US buyer. Amid massive public opposition, federal courts repeatedly enjoined these measures, but the bipartisan consensus behind driving Chinese technology out of critical markets only solidified as the Biden administration took office.

Biden’s White House, with the support of Congress and the intelligence agencies, encouraged the campaign of threats, casting TikTok simultaneously as a national security risk and a test case for legislative muscle. In 2024, Congress passed a bill mandating divestiture of any “foreign adversary-controlled” social media company, essentially compelling ByteDance either to sell TikTok or face a nationwide ban.

The measure was signed into law by Biden on April 24, 2024, following overwhelming bipartisan support of 360-58 in the House and 79-18 in the Senate. Every turn of the TikTok saga—from the initial Trump bans to Biden’s legislative maneuvers, to Trump’s orchestrated “solution”—has been justified in the name of anti-communism and extreme American nationalism in the service of capital, global power and technological supremacy. The entire episode is yet another example of the unanimity within the two-party system and complicity of the Democrats with the fascist politics of Donald Trump.

Although no further last-minute interventions are expected from Beijing, as with all business deals involving massive sums of money, nothing is truly certain until all signatures are in place, and the final approval is delivered from both Washington and Beijing.

The TikTok takeover is an example of the process of “decoupling” that has been the subject of debate by the US ruling class as the relationship between the US and China heads for economic and military conflict. At the same time, the Chinese are willing to make the TikTok deal despite its negative financial impact because it allows ByteDance to maintain some level of participation while avoiding a full US ban of the app. By agreeing to relinquish control of the core technical platform and majority ownership, ByteDance retains a commercial interest in TikTok.

Meanwhile, the deal is viewed by Beijing as a concession amid the broader US-China negotiations on tariffs, technology and geopolitical issues and averts, for the time being, a total cutoff from the lucrative US market.

War propaganda and militarism on children’s TV in Germany

Martin Nowak



Screenshot of Logo! news programme produced by state broadcasters ARD/ZDF for children [Photo: YouTube logo! channel]

“Even children must become ‘fit for war’”—could have been the appropriate title for the Logo! broadcast about conscription earlier this year. Logo! is the news programme produced by state broadcasters ARD/ZDF for children. Since 1997, Logo! has been broadcast on the children’s channel KiKa and transmitted daily since 2010. The no.front segment recently debated the question “Should there be compulsory military service again?” The segment can be watched here in German.

“In the pro-and-con debate format logo! no.front, moderated by Maral Bazargani and Sherif Rizkallah, young people discuss a current news item or a topic relevant to the target group,” is how the broadcaster describes the segment. Three children face off with opposing positions. The aim is supposed to be to find common ground or even reach a compromise.

But moderator Rizkallah apparently understood “no front” differently—he confronted and attacked almost continuously the three children on the anti-war side.

Rizkallah set the tone right from the start and did not even attempt to present a balanced picture. Russia’s attack had shown that wars were once again possible in Europe, and “we must prepare for that,” he declared, entirely in the service of the government’s “new era” in foreign and defence policy.

Any mention of past illegal or aggressive deployments of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces)—in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan or Syria—was absent from the entire broadcast, as was any reference to Germany’s murderous history of two world wars.

Instead, he wielded questionable statistics suggesting that a majority supported conscription. According to Logo!’s own survey, 61 percent of students had said they would be willing to fight for their country in an emergency.

By contrast, the results of the “Youth Trend Study 2025” published in June with 5,000 participants between 15 and 30 years of age painted a very different picture: 81 percent of this age group were not willing to die “for their country,” 69 percent also did not want to defend it with weapons. Polls among the general population—by the Bundeswehr Centre of Military History and Social Sciences (ZMSBw) in 2024, or the opinion research institute Forsa in 2025—also showed that 52 and 59 percent respectively also rejected defending Germany militarily.

The entire Logo! broadcast followed a clear line: children were to be made enthusiastic about Germany being made “fit for war,” as the defence minister put it. Rizkallah never questioned the positions of the three children who spoke in favour of conscription but attacked the three who argued vaguely against it.

Supported by a short clip portraying the need for tens of thousands of soldiers and the supposedly inadequate financing of the Bundeswehr as objective facts, Rizkallah launched his attack right at the beginning with the question: “If, now, an incredible number of people were to think like you—who would do it then?”

As already indicated: there are in fact an incredible number who think this way. To further discredit these positions, he even asked one child from the opposing side whether it was not “absurd” and an “egoistic decision” to live safely here but say: “I don’t want to do anything for it.” To the moderator’s likely great disappointment, the child defended the stance as being completely comprehensible.

As the discussion continued, Rizkallah then tried to build bridges and persuade the contra side—saying, one could also serve as a doctor, engineer or cook. He also sought to sweeten the current arrangements, since military service relies on volunteers.

The moderator’s rhetorical tricks were reminiscent of the repulsive methods with which conscientious objectors were confronted in the past. With a focus on emotional appeals, the causes of war, rearmament and Bundeswehr deployments were completely left out. In the end, Rizkallah staged an apparent compromise: everyone would agree that one should give something back to one’s country—whether militarily or otherwise.

This single broadcast did not come out of nowhere. On the Logo! website, under the keyword “Bundeswehr,” there are 33 entries—from the trivialisation of the Afghanistan deployment to a sentimental video about “Papa as a soldier” to an explanation of the new Veterans’ Day. But not a word about the Nazi past of the Bundeswehr, right-wing extremist networks or abuse in the forces.

The Logo! example shows a profound upheaval in post-war German society. Despite the continuity of old Nazis in business, politics and the civil service, German imperialism was forced to eat humble pie after the end of World War II in 1945. Subsequently, broad sections of the population were shaped by a pacifist approach to education and scepticism about war.

As recently as a few years ago, parents from the Green milieu expressed outrage if children played “shooting” games or took on warlike roles.

This is not the place for a comprehensive discussion of the pedagogical background. The fact is: while opposition to war remains deeply rooted in the working class, a pacifist upbringing became a political problem for the ruling class at the latest with the declared “new era” and the return of German militarism from 2013 onwards.

An example is a column by Jan Fleischhauer in news weekly Der Spiegel (2016), in which he mocked researchers who criticised Logo! for “militarisation in the nursery.” Referring to the Cologne New Year’s Eve incidents and citing the far-right “violence researcher” Jörg Baberowski, he concluded that “a bit of militarisation in the nursery” might “possibly be quite useful in the course of globalisation.”

The repulsive Logo! broadcast fits into this general shift to the right. Since the war in Ukraine, politicians and the media have been increasingly dropping their mask. The end of pacifist education goes hand in hand with the bankruptcy of pacifist politics. The Greens—once a self-declared pacifist party—are today the most militant mouthpiece of German militarism.

Today all parties in the Bundestag (parliament) agree that Germany must also defend its interests by military means. Chancellor Merz recently declared that Germany must once again be “the strongest army in Europe.”

Military strategists have long been aware that the low level of support among the population is a weak point. “Operations plan Deutschland,” therefore identified the “mindset of the population” as one of the greatest challenges.

Everyone has seen the aggressive Bundeswehr recruitment posters. But its presence at city festivals, trade fairs, in schools and on social media has also increased massively—especially on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. Target group: young people who are still malleable.

The Bundeswehr has been present for years at the Gamescom fair in Cologne. On bundeswehr.de, it explains why “precisely the gaming community is so interesting” for the Bundeswehr. Gamers have “trained hand-eye coordination, technical understanding and the ability to quickly master complex systems”—ideal prerequisites for cyber operations or electronic warfare.

The Bundeswehr markets itself as a “versatile, highly specialised employer” offering young people “exciting perspectives”—and exploits precisely those social ills that the ruling politicians themselves have created.

In doing so, it follows the model of the U.S. Army: using social devastation and poverty to recruit people voluntarily as cannon fodder.

Since the suspension of conscription—which is now to be reactivated—the Bundeswehr has recruited thousands of minors every year. In 2024, with a sad record: 2,203 under-18s were recruited. Germany is thereby violating UN resolutions such as the Paris Principles and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which outlaw child soldiers.

Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, the militarisation of society has increased enormously—even more so in Eastern Europe, Ukraine and Russia. Shooting lessons in schools, nationalist hero cults and forced recruitment have long since become the norm there.

The KiKa editorial team—and with it the German elites—are apparently determined to reconnect here too with the militarist traditions of the Kaiser’s Empire and the Nazi era—starting with the youngest.