The way teachers work must change now. The Scott report doesn’t even try to fix the real challenge

By Donna Pendergast

There is a collective sigh of frustration from education academics when initial teacher education (ITE) is yet again the subject of review, with a series of recommendations that promise to transform not only ITE, but the teaching profession. Apparently the problems with the teaching profession are entirely the result of the failures of ITE. 

It is also crucial to consider these most recent recommendations in context – they are  the most recent in what has been a decade of ITE reform. 

Released on July 7 and titled Strong Beginnings: Report of the Teacher Education Expert Panel, this review has 14 recommendations across four domains, reflecting the earlier discussion paper: strengthening ITE programs to deliver confident, effective beginning teachers (which is mostly about embedding core content); strengthening the link between performance and funding of ITE programs (which is mostly about reporting and data); improving the quality of practical experiences in teaching; and improving access to postgraduate ITE for mid-career entrants.   

The opening sentence in the executive summary, “[T]he importance of great teachers cannot be overstated”, is uncontestable – thank you – we agree.  The closing paragraph provides the rationale and context for the recommendations that follow, acknowledging the “major reforms” progressed under Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG, 2014) and noting “but there is still more to do”.  

Warning bells – tinkering with ITE will not be a panacea for the workforce shortage challenges facing the sector, with ITE a small part of the much more complex landscape, and with a long lead time to take effect.  

I read the report and recommendations from the informed and insider position as a Dean of Education, Chair of the Queensland Council of Deans of Education, program accreditation panellist and chairperson; for the duration of the time we collectively traversed the intense period rolling-out the reforms of TEMAG. 

It was indeed major – and very costly – reform.  Only recently, around the nation, have those reforms been fully implemented.  And we even have a few graduates who have journeyed through these new programs. It is important to acknowledge their added length combined with the time it takes to complete the programs – for many enrolled part-time due to the tough economic environment that demands they work alongside their study. 

We have only a few years of graduates from these TEMAGed programs so we don’t yet know the impact of the major reforms.  Hence, the value and impact of the TEMAG initiatives are not yet known in terms of the profession and workforce – in fact there is a gap in research about many aspects of ITE, a point clearly made in the report. 

The recommendations thus are appended to a significantly revamped ITE sector that has not had the benefit of resources to research and review the effects of major reform

The big shifts resulting from TEMAG include: additional non-academic requirements for entry to ITE; the Literary and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education (LANTITE); program standards; and demonstrating classroom readiness through the Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA), as a final hurdle, alongside mandatory volumes of learning and consistent professional experience time allocation. Some of these reforms are dubious in terms of adding quality and value and the cost benefit analysis for ITE, but none has been contested in the report recommendations. That’s a missed opportunity.   

There are some recommendations in the report that could be silver linings. Acknowledging the need for additional funding to research ITE and resourcing this deficit, and the intention to consider TPAs comparatively, are standouts for me. This makes sense as the focus should be on the readiness and novice expertise of ITE graduates about to enter the workforce, taking into account the learning and value that comes from their ITE program.  

Other glimmers of hope among the recommendations include: establishing a separate authority for oversight and achieving national consistency (contentious, but important); greater visibility of mentor teachers; and the importance of investing in professional experience by all members of the profession, which is a key aspect of program retention and identity development for ITE students. The mechanics for activating these innovations however, is lacking, so these might more properly be regarded as potential positives. The current demands on the ITE sector to meet accreditation requirements are significant, so adding to that does mean additional workload for tertiary educators, hence it is refreshing to see funding for transition and funding for the establishment of leadership institutions.  This is happening at a time when the number of tertiary experts in education is also depleted consequential to universities tightening their belts, so a reasonable implementation timeline will be crucial.

Less convincing is the need to specify core content. The question of what is core has been narrowed to four areas that appear, frankly, to be incontestable and likely already to feature in ITE programs in the country. It will be the necessary changes to standards that will take the time and the task of making visible the core content for compliance assurances, and the relative volume of learning and level of prescription that is yet to be defined that will undoubtedly cause consternation for the implementation of the core content recommendations. And the question of what is to be removed from programs is already sounding around the nation – adding more means something has to go. The loss of agility and likelihood of sameness is thus concerning, cookie cutter education programs seem to be the antithesis of what we need to ensure we attract and graduate a diverse teacher workforce.

Importantly, refinements in ITE do not solve the problem of workforce shortages in classrooms today.  

There is extensive research that points to the need for a major shift in the way we do schooling today.  The way teachers work also needs to change.  This is crucial for the necessary transformation that is needed to reset school education to reflect the needs of contemporary society.  The TEEP recommendations work within our current system and can be considered as an incremental step in the bigger challenge of transforming our schooling sector and the teachers entering it.

Professor Donna Pendergast is the Director of Engagement in the Arts, Education and Law Group and former Dean and Head of the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University. Her research expertise is education transformation and efficacy.

Republish this article for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.

7 thoughts on “The way teachers work must change now. The Scott report doesn’t even try to fix the real challenge

  1. Tom Worthington says:

    The Scott report recommendations may not do what is needed. But I suggest those who train teachers take the opportunity, while those changes are being made to incorporate others they think are needed. You don’t need to consult anyone, just do it.

  2. Donna Pendergast says:

    Thanks Tom – there are some silver linings here, for sure, and program change is a usual part of feedback cycles for all programs. Teacher education has the most compliance requirements of any of the professional programs delivered, so there are some limitations. We also must report all changes on an annual basis.

  3. Ania Lian says:

    Thank you for the post. I wonder how the policymakers reconcile the need for innovation and groundbreaking research with drivers that result in “cookie cutter education programs”? For example, in literacy I’m very concerned that the genre pedagogy (SFL) results in the tendency to mute alternatives and innovation, however sound, as literacy researchers speed towards efficiency while losing ourselves and our identities as inventors, not cookie cutters. I’m concerned that the easiest research is being done, while attempts to rethink pedagogy are discouraged as we push for sameness. Policies and, worse, misinterpretated policies will drive to a culture where thinking is the last thing we will want to see.
    Ania Lian
    CDU Darwin

  4. Donna Pendergast says:

    Thanks Ania, definitely a concern for our profession. There is a suggestion of funds to conduct research so this may create that necessary space for innovation and creating potentially new ways of doing. Here’s hoping.

  5. Kelli McGraw says:

    “Less convincing is the need to specify core content. The question of what is core has been narrowed to four areas that appear, frankly, to be incontestable and likely already to feature in ITE programs in the country.”
    Nail on the head, Donna. The APSTs that our courses have to map to in order to be accredited already cover these four ‘new’ core areas. So, if our content all already aligns with these areas, what will they make the QCT etc. require of us next to ‘prove it’ – state mandated/designed/endorsed assessments and rubrics?

    Folks outside ITE don’t realise how constrained our design work already is.

  6. Donna Pendergast says:

    Thanks Kelli – there are many myths and assumptions about teacher education and little appreciation of the realities – I agree with your feedback entirely.

  7. Andrew Gabriel says:

    This is a wonderful article and analysis, thank you. As a late career changing new teacher I am trying to carry my views lightly on what is quite spirited debate around required reforms. Would love to hear your views on why national consistency is important (noting it appears to be a divisive issue). Thanks!

Comments are closed.

Discover more from EduResearch Matters

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading