Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the publication of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training report on the inquiry into teacher education. I note that it is a unanimous report. I note the committee’s chair, the member for Cowper, has referred the recommendations to the government, just as the deputy chair, the member for Port Adelaide, has referred them to me as Labor’s spokesman on education. I will, as the government no doubt will, give the detailed recommendations consideration and respond in due course.

This is a very valuable report because it underlines the importance of teaching as a profession and it underlines the importance of quality teaching. Historically as a nation we have undervalued, underregarded and underremunerated teachers. We have undervalued teaching as a profession and that is now emerging as a historical attitude which is to our cost. If we do not repair that attitude, it will be to our considerable economic and social disadvantage in the future. I do not think we can underline too much the importance of teaching and the importance of quality teaching.

All of the research and evidence I have looked at recently leads me to the conclusion that one of the most important factors, if not the most important factor, in determining a quality educational outcome for a student is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. As a consequence, public policy cannot turn a blind eye to how we assess quality teaching in the classroom. But before you can move to determine how public policy might judge the quality of teaching in the classroom, you actually have to have a supply of teachers—you have to have a supply of quality teachers and retain them in a noble profession.

Let us look at a quick snapshot of the state of our teaching profession and the supply of teachers in Australian society at the moment. The statistics are readily available from the department, and some feature in the report. Between 2001 and 2003, one in five domestic students in teacher education courses dropped out during their course. Fewer than 60 per cent of teacher graduates from initial teacher education courses were actually working full time in education in the year after they completed their course. Education authorities report anecdotally that up to 25 per cent of commencing teachers leave their current teaching position, and possibly the profession, within their first five years of teaching. Some 70 per cent of teacher education students in 2005 said they intended to work as a teacher for no more than five years. In 2002, of the over 365,000 Australians with teaching qualifications, over 115,000 were working outside education.

As well, we have significant difficulty with the ageing of our teaching workforce. In 2001, six per cent of teachers were under 25; 22 per cent were between 25 and 34; 28 per cent were between 35 and 44; and 43 per cent were over 45. And there are suggestions now that maybe about 50 per cent of our teachers are 50 or over. It was as early as 2003 that the ministerial council of state, Commonwealth and territory education ministers concluded shortages of 20,000 to 30,000 teachers could occur later this decade.

When it comes to specialised teacher qualifications, we see appalling statistics in physics, chemistry and maths—the key, core disciplines of science and maths. Over 40 per cent of senior school physics teachers lack a physics major, 25 per cent of senior physics teachers have not studied the subject beyond first year at university, 25 per cent of senior chemistry teachers do not have a major in chemistry, 25 per cent of science teachers do not have a science qualification, around 25 per cent of maths teachers do not have a major in maths and nearly 10 per cent of maths teachers have not studied any maths at university at all. We have an emerging crisis in the number of teachers, in the specialised attributes of those teachers and in retaining teachers within the profession. That leads to a crisis in the quality of teaching within Australia.

What does the committee unanimously recommend we do about that? I think there are some significant strands underlying the importance of the committee’s report. What can we do to attract young Australians to teaching? What can we do to attract young Australians to stay within that profession? What can we do to attract young Australians to specialise in key core discipline areas? Some of the suggestions that the committee have made are to me eminently sensible, including that teachers in their early years should be subjected to some form of mentoring program conducted by more experienced teachers. This is a very sensible idea. The committee suggested that teachers in their early years, particularly their first year, should be the subject of rigorous induction procedures and that a standard year’s teaching load should be reduced to enable that induction to occur. The committee said we should require ongoing professional development as a matter of course and that it should be recognised. The committee said that, through the work of Teaching Australia, we should move to national accreditation of teacher qualifications. This, to me, is a sensible course to pursue. Just as it is sensible to pursue national curricula in other areas, it is sensible to pursue a system of national accreditation when it comes to teachers.

The committee also referred to the entrance requirements and the current public policy attitude to university students studying education. I think that the government sent a very important message a couple of years ago, in 2003-04, when it reduced the HECS up-front contribution for those students who wished to study teaching. Whether or not people take a sceptical view about whether HECS is or is not a deterrent to students studying—and I take the view that a high HECS contribution can be a deterrent to young students from working families—if you reduce the HECS contribution in key areas you send a public policy message that the nation believes that studying and teaching in these areas is important. The committee sensibly recommends that there should be a long-term evaluation of that.

The committee also makes the point that the cluster funding arrangements for the Commonwealth contribution per university student studying an education or teaching course ought to be the subject of a very serious review. We do know that the government’s current cluster funding arrangements are historical and we also know that very many of them bear no relationship whatsoever to the real cost of providing quality courses to students in particular course areas. That particularly applies in education in the practical on-the-job and classroom training that is essential for and required of graduating teachers. This is a very important report. It underlines the importance of quality teaching in the classroom.

I said earlier that it is a difficult thing for public policy to judge the quality of a teacher in the classroom, but I think we have to go down that road. I do not subscribe to the current minister for education’s simplistic view that you can somehow judge the quality of a teacher in the classroom simply by looking at results in standardised tests. That is simplistic and narrow. But there are a whole range of things we can do to ensure quality teaching in the classroom, including the committee’s recommendations on mentoring, induction, ongoing professional development, accreditation in specialised areas and a national system of accreditation. This report is important because it goes to a fundamental area of importance to our social and economic future. Without quality teaching we will not see quality students emerge. That will be to our economic and social cost. I commend the committee’s report to the House.

See this speech in context