In current policy debates about graduate teacher readiness in Australian schools, one central question is often overlooked: how does the diversity of school contexts impact the specific needs and expectations placed on graduate teachers? 

Recognising this diversity is crucial for tailoring teacher education programs and support systems to better equip new teachers for the realities of schools, especially those that struggle with hiring and retaining teachers. These schools, broadly described as hard-to-staff, serve diverse communities with distinct socio-economic, cultural, and geographic characteristics that can profoundly impact teaching and learning dynamics.

In our study, we wanted to know what teacher readiness means from the vantage point of these schools. To answer this question, we conducted interviews with 17 principals from a range of hard-to-staff schools across Victoria. Their voices echoed concerns often overshadowed by broad-strokes policy discussions about ‘classroom-ready teachers’. 

One-Size-Doesn’t-Fit-All

The rhetoric surrounding ‘classroom readiness’ often hinges on a logic of uniformity and standardisation. It is based on the assumption that a teacher who has met defined standards and possesses knowledge of specific content is ready to work in any setting.

This approach obscures a reality that is far more complex than is readily acknowledged. Teaching requires exercising professional judgement about what works in response to student needs and community context. 

As one principal from a regional hard-to-staff school in our study remarked: 

“I feel that some students want to walk in feeling curriculum competent, that they know the curriculum and they can talk ‘the learning outcomes’ and use that departmental speak, and that makes them feel or believe or behave more like teachers? Perhaps that’s their perception. But the reality is that when you get into a community, and you’ve got 20 students to manage, that curriculum knowledge, it’s so secondary to the skills that has to be in place so that these children have someone that can look to, that co-regulates them, supports them, makes them feel safe, and then once they’re ready to learn, meets them at their need. 

And it’s that idea that if you’ve got the curriculum knowledge, sometimes I feel that the student teachers come in thinking that one size fits all this approach that I’ve seen, or has been modelled through me, or that has been unpacked with me will translate to every school and not into my setting.” 

An appreciation of diversity

The principal’s comment highlights a crucial point: A one-size-fits-all approach fails to acknowledge that readiness to teach involves more than merely adhering to a set of standardised practices. It requires an appreciation of diversity, an awareness of the distinct dynamics within each classroom, and the ability to address the particular needs of students and the broader community.

This is not to dismiss the value of specific forms of knowledge for teachers. In fact, such knowledge is vital in defining and distinguishing teaching as a professional field. The argument here is for practising professional judgement and leveraging contextual insights to determine what works best, for whom, under what conditions and why. Such a capacity is the hallmark of readiness for a profession that prioritises responsiveness to the unique needs of students in each classroom. 

Recognising complexity and diversity in teacher readiness

Drawing on insights shared by principals in our research, we revisited the debate on classroom readiness with a focus on questions about ‘context’. From low socioeconomic outer-metropolitan areas to regional centres to small rural communities, each school in our study presented unique opportunities and challenges to the workforce. 

Paying attention to context creates valuable opportunities for ‘learning to teach’ as a situated process that involves continuous learning, reflective practice, and adaptable strategies, all of which must be tailored to the specific challenges and strengths of each school environment. In the words of another principal:

“You’ve got to come in with confidence and humility and the ability to say ‘I’m at the start of my journey, and I’m looking forward to being mentored in your school. I want to grow in your school.”

An approach that begins with the actual conditions of schools reveals the limitations of standardised approaches in teacher preparation. It highlights the need to embrace complexity, value connection to the community and understand context as the foundation for any discussions about  what readiness for the profession ought to look like. 

Crafting a new narrative

A decade on from the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) review, we are back to square one, blaming teacher education as both the cause and the solution for ‘mixed’ educational outcomes for Australian students in international comparisons. 

If the lesson of the past is anything to go by, one thing should be clear: teacher education reform must account for and integrate the complexities of the real world. At their core, reform models of teacher education  must reflect the diverse socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional factors that impact teaching and learning. 

The Teacher Education Expert Panel Discussion Paper acknowledged the importance of ensuring teachers are prepared for their communities. Disappointingly this essential aspect was largely disregarded in the final Strong Beginnings Report. 

Narrow focus

A narrow focus on ‘classroom readiness’ limits teacher activity and discourages engagement with broader context. Therefore, we echo the calls for a more comprehensive approach that expands discussions on readiness beyond the classroom to encompass context. This approach derives its direction for policy reform of teacher education from the specific needs of schools and their communities.

As our research findings help demonstrate, such an approach emphasises open-mindedness, flexibility, cultural responsiveness, and genuine collaboration between schools and universities to create a more sustainable and effective pathway for preparing teachers to meet the diverse needs of their students and the community.

From left to right:

Babak Dadvand is as a senior lecturer in pedagogy, professional practice, and teacher education at La Trobe University with expertise on social justice education. His work extends to staffing challenges in the hardest-to-staff schools and effective practices in school-university partnership in Initial Teacher Education.

Juliana Ryan teaches professional ethics in the School of Education at La Trobe University. She uses participatory, narrative and discursive approaches to research professional and academic identities, post-secondary transitions, professional learning and social learning systems.

Miriam Tanti is professor and associate dean, partnership and executive director of the Nexus Program at La Trobe University’s School of Education. Her research focuses on university-school partnerships, with a particular focus on communities of practice. Her other area of interest is in the meaningful integration of technologies in education.

Steve Murphy is director of Rural and Regional Education Engagement at La Trobe University’s School of Education. His research focuses on strengths approaches to rural education, with particular interest in teacher preparation, school leadership and STEM education.