Rod Sawford (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The implementation of the very achievable 12 recommendations in the report of the Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training on teacher education entitled Top of the class will provide a very sound underpinning to future education policy in this country in not only teacher education but education generally. Debates in this country on education are all too often non-productive. Claims and counterclaims are made and repeated ad nauseam. Few of the claims can be substantiated, for they ignore valid evidential research and data. The committee has responded very strongly to this glaring omission. Three of the recommendations, 1, 2 and 9, deal with the need to establish a far better research base.

Firstly, it is recommended that a longitudinal study be established to examine the effectiveness of teacher education in Australia and the first five years of a teacher’s career when it is all so obvious a serious attrition rate occurs. Secondly, it is recommended that the Australian government establish a specific educational research fund to be distributed on a similar model to that of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Thirdly, the committee recommends that the Australian government support Teaching Australia’s proposal to conduct a feasibility study into the establishment of a national clearing house for education research.

One of the great problems in the education debate in this country is that everyone thinks that they know what is going on because they went to school or university or some bit of further education. Nothing could be further from the truth. Very few people indeed know what is going on in education, and very few in this place. That in itself is a tragedy. Education debates in this House are all too often embarrassing and just plain wrong.

Recommendation 1 says: ‘Stop guessing, find out what is going on.’ Recommendation 2 says: ‘Take education seriously.’ Recommendation 9 says: ‘Stop grinding teachers into the ground with the latest fad, whim, fashion or politically correct statement.’ Recommendation 3 says to the Australian government: ‘Continue to support the work of Teaching Australia to develop a national system of accreditation.’ There is no doubt that the establishment of a national system of accreditation will take some time and cooperation of state and territory registration authorities. The government should ensure that sufficient resources are committed to allow time for agreement to be reached.

Education is becoming internationalised. It is imperative that Australia begins to take a national approach to education. A national system of accreditation is a sound way to begin that process. Thirty years ago Australia was regarded as an enlightened educational beacon internationally. That is no longer necessarily the case. From that time, we have dropped the ball on technical and vocational education—we still have not picked it up; undervalued primary education, particularly in numeracy and literacy—we have not picked that up either; diminished physical education, giving rise to obesity in children—we have not picked that up either; allowed mathematics and science to fall under the radar—we have not picked that up either; and, as over 25 reports on teacher education have indicated, sent many mixed messages on that topic as well.

It is time to begin to return Australia to a more prominent position in the world of education. Recommendation 4 concerns entry into teacher education. As prominent researchers Skilbeck and Connell have said, selection for teaching should draw upon the rich cultural diversity of Australian society. They are absolutely correct. The teaching force needs to reflect the diversity of the Australian population. It does not, however, do this. Entry into teacher education is increasingly mature, metropolitan, middle class and female. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of those attributes. However, they are far too narrow.

There are too few students from lower socioeconomic, Indigenous, non-English-speaking, rural and remote backgrounds, as well as a dearth of males in primary education. Indigenous representation of 0.7 per cent is well below the four per cent of Indigenous enrolments in our schools. Non-English-speaking representation is at 13 per cent, well below the 23 per cent of students enrolled in this category. Statistics suggest that representation from low socioeconomic areas is not a problem. That is not true. The way of measuring the representation—the socioeconomic status—is flawed and seriously so. Mature age representation is increasing. Sixty per cent of enrolments in teacher education at Flinders University in my state are mature age. Thirty per cent of the enrolments in the University of Tasmania are aged over 25 years. Percentages in Queensland are 50 per cent and higher.

Students from rural and remote areas are disadvantaged because of living and relocation costs and the need to get a job. This leads to a significant dropout from courses of people who would probably become great teachers. It appears the real issue with rural and remote students is not necessarily attracting them to teacher education but supporting them to ensure the retention and successful completion of their studies. Some states like South Australia and Queensland do provide significant funds for this to occur but it is not extensive and, overall, the national response is uneven.

Selection processes for entry into teacher education is very much a contested debate. Should it be based solely on academic performance or draw upon a wider range of criteria? Academic achievement is not sufficient, but this is how most teacher education entrants are selected. However, aptitude is also crucial. The quality of students when they graduate is more important than their academic achievement when they enter the course. It is at graduation that no compromise should be made.

During courses some students display attitudes that suggest they are totally unsuited to teaching. However, there is some reluctance to transfer them to other courses. The assumption that high academic scores reflect high literacy and numeracy is not always correct. Only four of the 31 universities require year 12 mathematics; eight require year 11. The other 19 universities have no requirements in mathematics. That is not acceptable in a modern world.

Recommendation 5 deals with the supply of teachers and meeting teacher shortages. There is an obvious mismatch between government, employing authorities and universities in meeting the needs of the teacher labour market. The obvious lack of collaboration between these bodies is not acceptable. This is one area where data is available. There is no excuse for not using it, although it should be acknowledged that the process for identifying workforce priorities is not specific enough.

Recommendation 6 refers to practicum and partnerships in teacher education. Beginner teachers rate their practicum as the most useful part of teacher courses. However, there is no single model in Australia. There is no consensus on how much there is and when it commences, nor on structure, assessment or evaluation. There are suggestions that the amount of practicum has reduced in recent years. There is a shortage of placements. There is no obligation on employing authorities or schools to offer places. There is a lack of incentive to be involved: small payment, no time off and no professional development. This is a very serious problem in our secondary schools. Major reforms are needed in practicum. There is insufficient attention given to matching students with appropriate teachers. Too often teachers have little contact with universities and are unclear of expectations. Universities list a lack of funding as the major hindrance to a practicum. There is a lack of shared responsibility between employers, universities and schools.

The Australian government should take the lead in promoting, strengthening and evaluating partnerships. Employing authorities need to assume a greater responsibility for the preparation of future teachers. Practicum supervisors should be eligible as advanced teachers for higher status and remuneration. Universities need to give greater priority to properly supporting students in practicum.

Time is going to limit my recommendations, so I will quickly refer to recommendations 7 and 8. I support the committee’s recommendation on the introduction of the Scottish model of induction as the model that should be followed in Australia. Ongoing professional development for teachers should be a condition for the renewal of registration. As an aside, interestingly, the Scottish model of education is the one that we are most closely aligned with in Australia.

Recommendations 10, 11 and 12 refer to the funding of teacher education. The Commonwealth contribution for teacher education at $7,251, which is lower than that for languages and performing arts at $9,037, is simply not justifiable; in fact the amount ought to be closer to that of nursing, at $9,692.

Funding increases for practicum and the greater transparency of acquitting Commonwealth government funds are also highly recommended. As I have said previously, this is a very sensible and professional report which has made achievable recommendations and demands, and it deserves a positive response from the minister and the government. I thank the chair, the member for Cowper, and members of the committee. I thank the secretariat, who have done a great job—in particular, Janet Holmes, who has put together a very lucid and professional report, needs to be specifically congratulated. I commend the report to the Main Committee, and I commend it to the government and to the opposition.

See this speech in context