Teacher Education Expert Panel Discussion Paper, 21 April 2023
In relation to the field of Initial Teacher Education (ITE), some of the issues we have identified in the sector would not be addressed by the current discussion paper and proposals.
There have been huge cutbacks to arts programs at schools, and at universities and other training providers. This reduction in programs or offerings within education programs impacts on quality applicants being able to undertake ITE studies in the arts. In particular the impact of COVID 19 on the university sector resulted in a reduction of course offerings in the arts and the closing down of some arts education programs in a range of institutions.
The focus of earlier government policies and ITE initiatives on STEM in particular contributed to a devaluing of the arts and humanities sectors. The increase in the cost of initial arts degrees also impacts upon the pool of graduates who can then undertake post graduate ITE studies.
A greater focus on arts programs and subject offerings, and on creativity and innovation more broadly, may in fact help attract more quality candidates to ITE.
The ongoing quest to ‘improve’ the quality of teacher education continues to focus on Initial Teacher Education and this discussion paper proposes a raft of additional reforms that follow on from the extensive suite of changes that followed on from the TEMAG proposals in 2014.
The underlying premise of the current discussion paper is that the ways to ‘improve’ the quality of graduating teachers is almost exclusively about what happens within universities, and that they aren’t already producing confident, effective, classroom-ready teachers. The solution appears to be a new suite of regulations, measures and expectations required of ITE providers as if this will improve the quality and quantity of graduates.
At the same time the proposals all seem to ignore the systems of program and curriculum accreditation, review, quality assurance, reporting and so forth that are required of universities and ITE providers.
The proposed solutions do not address the wider issues in terms of professional standing and reputation of teachers and the profession. Nor do these proposals address the workload issues that are really impacting on attracting quality candidates to ITE training.
The proposals to strengthen ITE programs through determining evidence-based teaching practices to prioritise has merit as a principle. However the proposed list of ‘core content’ is reductionist and should not be built into any accreditation standards and procedures.
The current alignment to the Teacher Professional Standards is appropriate, and if anything the standards could be reviewed.