In the 2024 budget, substantial funding was announced to move teacher education towards an in-school, apprenticeship-style model. The injection of funding is intended to address the shortage of teachers currently facing our schools. The shortage is predicted to worsen, particularly at secondary level. It is exacerbated by substantial attrition from the profession.
Teacher training has largely been the purview of universities since teachers’ colleges merged with them in the 1990s and early 2000s. Universities currently train approximately 90% of teachers for primary and secondary education.
Academics from university education faculties have recently criticised the intention to move away from university-based teacher education. They argued that teaching practice benefits from teacher education programmes being taught by education researchers.
Their argument sounds plausible but does not bear much scrutiny.
It is true that one rationale for the mergers was to enhance the research literacy of teachers. The hope was that basing the profession on academic research would improve the rigour of teaching practice. Yet this ambition has not been realised.
The research conducted and promulgated by education faculties in New Zealand mostly comprises small-scale, qualitative studies. Research of that kind is not reliable or generalisable. To support generalisable claims about teaching practice, large-scale quantitative research is needed. Unfortunately, though, little quantitative research is conducted by New Zealand’s education academics.
Furthermore, New Zealand’s university teacher education programmes have shown remarkable reluctance to adopt crucial developments in more reliable international education research. The example of structured literacy teaching is a case in point.
For at least two decades, international research has shown that structured teaching is the most effective way of ensuring that children learn to read and write. Yet, with the notable exception of Canterbury University, most university teacher education in New Zealand has remained rooted in the failed ‘whole language’ and ‘balanced’ methods.
Theory and research have important roles in informing teaching practice. However, if that research is not rigourous, it is likely to do harm rather than good. Furthermore, the claim that teacher education programmes are more effective when they are taught by researchers is unproven.
Another rationale for merging teachers' colleges with universities was to enhance connections between teacher education and subject-matter experts. It was hoped that teacher education programmes would gain greater disciplinary strength in subjects like science and history through interaction with academics across the university.
Unfortunately, this worthy aim was never realised. A recent report from the Education Review Office (ERO) showed that primary teachers graduating from universities feel ill-prepared to teach across the curriculum, especially in mathematics and science. Another report, from the Royal Society Te Apārangi in 2021, showed that primary teachers’ average level of mathematics knowledge is insufficient.
On the practical side, university programmes are not adequately preparing teachers for the realities of the classroom. After two decades of universities enjoying a near-monopoly on teacher education, the profession is in substantial trouble.
A 2018 survey by the primary teachers’ union found that half of all teachers leave the profession within their first five years. In a 2023 survey of 1,591 teachers by the Teaching Council, 58% of respondents said it was likely or very likely that they would leave the profession in the next five years. Only 16% said it was not very, or not at all, likely. Enrolments in initial teacher education programmes have also been trending downwards.
An important factor contributing to this situation is the increasing complexity of behavioural challenges that teachers face in the classroom. Another ERO report published by in March of this year found that students’ behaviour in our classrooms is the worst in the OECD, and that it is worsening.
These are downstream effects. Upstream lies the harsh reality that university courses do very little to equip new teachers with skills in classroom management. A recent survey from ERO found that less than a third feel prepared for the job. Just 35% of the new teachers surveyed felt adequately prepared to manage challenging behaviour.
The report also found that new teachers graduating from non-university providers were twice as likely to report feeling prepared for the job as their counterparts from university programmes. Most non-university programmes use the apprenticeship model targeted by the new funding.
The teaching profession, and our young people, have been poorly served by the university model of teacher education. Investing in alternative approaches is not just a good idea. It’s necessary.
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne.
Stephanie Martin has a Masters degree in Ancient History and has completed a Masters of Teaching (Primary). This article was published HERE
Academics from university education faculties have recently criticised the intention to move away from university-based teacher education. They argued that teaching practice benefits from teacher education programmes being taught by education researchers.
Their argument sounds plausible but does not bear much scrutiny.
It is true that one rationale for the mergers was to enhance the research literacy of teachers. The hope was that basing the profession on academic research would improve the rigour of teaching practice. Yet this ambition has not been realised.
The research conducted and promulgated by education faculties in New Zealand mostly comprises small-scale, qualitative studies. Research of that kind is not reliable or generalisable. To support generalisable claims about teaching practice, large-scale quantitative research is needed. Unfortunately, though, little quantitative research is conducted by New Zealand’s education academics.
Furthermore, New Zealand’s university teacher education programmes have shown remarkable reluctance to adopt crucial developments in more reliable international education research. The example of structured literacy teaching is a case in point.
For at least two decades, international research has shown that structured teaching is the most effective way of ensuring that children learn to read and write. Yet, with the notable exception of Canterbury University, most university teacher education in New Zealand has remained rooted in the failed ‘whole language’ and ‘balanced’ methods.
Theory and research have important roles in informing teaching practice. However, if that research is not rigourous, it is likely to do harm rather than good. Furthermore, the claim that teacher education programmes are more effective when they are taught by researchers is unproven.
Another rationale for merging teachers' colleges with universities was to enhance connections between teacher education and subject-matter experts. It was hoped that teacher education programmes would gain greater disciplinary strength in subjects like science and history through interaction with academics across the university.
Unfortunately, this worthy aim was never realised. A recent report from the Education Review Office (ERO) showed that primary teachers graduating from universities feel ill-prepared to teach across the curriculum, especially in mathematics and science. Another report, from the Royal Society Te Apārangi in 2021, showed that primary teachers’ average level of mathematics knowledge is insufficient.
On the practical side, university programmes are not adequately preparing teachers for the realities of the classroom. After two decades of universities enjoying a near-monopoly on teacher education, the profession is in substantial trouble.
A 2018 survey by the primary teachers’ union found that half of all teachers leave the profession within their first five years. In a 2023 survey of 1,591 teachers by the Teaching Council, 58% of respondents said it was likely or very likely that they would leave the profession in the next five years. Only 16% said it was not very, or not at all, likely. Enrolments in initial teacher education programmes have also been trending downwards.
An important factor contributing to this situation is the increasing complexity of behavioural challenges that teachers face in the classroom. Another ERO report published by in March of this year found that students’ behaviour in our classrooms is the worst in the OECD, and that it is worsening.
These are downstream effects. Upstream lies the harsh reality that university courses do very little to equip new teachers with skills in classroom management. A recent survey from ERO found that less than a third feel prepared for the job. Just 35% of the new teachers surveyed felt adequately prepared to manage challenging behaviour.
The report also found that new teachers graduating from non-university providers were twice as likely to report feeling prepared for the job as their counterparts from university programmes. Most non-university programmes use the apprenticeship model targeted by the new funding.
The teaching profession, and our young people, have been poorly served by the university model of teacher education. Investing in alternative approaches is not just a good idea. It’s necessary.
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne.
Stephanie Martin has a Masters degree in Ancient History and has completed a Masters of Teaching (Primary). This article was published HERE
6 comments:
Modern behaviour is certainly a formidable challenge. The effective counters adopted by the Victorians and into the 1960s now shunned. A detention class for delinquents may be actually attractive to many like minded and would be a tremendous challenge for the teacher of. But I am astonished that university education is necessary for pri teachers. A thorough grasp just 2 year ahead of the taught level should be fully adequate. (assuming a traditional educated adult ability in spoken and written English). In the 1950s many ordinary folk were recruited for teaching; many were quite effective with very far from university level knowledge. Elimination of time and patience consuming emphasis on maori twaddle, both in training and the lifetime after, would likely hugely improve the attractiveness to the sort of objective trainee likely to be able at science, arithmetic, and the basics of English. Research results are likely far too obscurely worded for most trainees. Simply teaching what worked to the 1950s, or how they do things in China and other more advanced countries would be more use. 25 years ago I sat in on a few writing composition classes of my infant son. The teacher was very recently graduated but uncommonly able (and rapidly progressed to teach at a training college). As a complete outsider I could spot much of her successful technique, yet it was not to the fore in others. It would not have been difficult to pass on.
What else could you expect from having progressive philosophy dominate in all our educational institutions for about 70 years ?
May it become common knowledge this egregious ideology deliberately promoted ineffective pedagogy (teaching methods) in all subjects along with cancelling traditional ethics. John Dewey labelled attention to the basics a fetish and Christianity evil.
Academia would to well to start to do some soul searching on how they are responsible for the educational fiasco we now have. Consider how they nurtured Marie Clay's Whole Language reading method and were at the forefront of ridiculing her critics, usually dedicated practising teachers using phonics.
Books free online like 'Progressively Worse' by Robert Peale and 'NZ's Educational Delusion' by Briar Lipson should be on reading lists for student teachers rather than 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' and similar destructive Progressive-Marxist texts.
Academia would do well to develop some humility towards practical teaching abilities acquired by experienced teachers rather than their 'clever' pie in the sky' theoretical nonsense cheaply acquired away from the coal face. This would include studying the methods and pedagogies of traditional teachers as well.
I have found 'Shanahan on Literacy' a US blog of value since this man Prof. Shamahan, unlike NZ academics has spent 40 plus years in classrooms as well as delved thoroughly into research. His perspective is more in line with my mother's who also spent much of her life teaching 1000s of students phonic reading and comprehension based on the traditional, This is now shown to comply with recent research.
In 2016 I produced an edited volume on upper secondary science teacher quality (Teacher quality in upper secondary science education: International perspectives, Palgrave-Macmillan, with N. Taylor). I am of the opinion that Japan has the best system at both pre-service and in-service levels. Schools, Universities of Education and the Ministry of Education work together to ensure consistent high standards for the duration of a teacher's career. People interested in upping standards here would be well advised to have a good look at Japan. Singapore too has an excellent system, but is too cenytralised to be of much use as a model for larger countries.
It sounds remarkably familiar to our nursing situation. Teachers College and in-house hospital nurse training had considerable advantages, not least that the graduates of these schemes both knew what they were in for in the real world.
Whoever thought it as a good idea to go the university trained route got it sadly wrong on so many fronts.
Anonymous 4"07 is quite right to make the connection between training and the destination workplace. One of the last things I did in Lebanon was to devise a Professional Master's in secondary science and maths teaching. The Professional Master's model is increasingly common in areas such as engineering and industrial chemistry viz 3-year content degree then 2 years workplace application. The Professional Master's has no thesis but a common inclusion is a workplace-based 'action research'-type project in the final year.
A 5-year qualification structure for secondary teachers would put them where upper secondary teachers in most of Europe are. The days of the 4-year-trained secondary teacher are numbered.
So a simple summary could be - academics that have consistently failed their customers for several decades are unable to look in the mirror and demand their unaccountable salaries are continued without question.
Responsibility, such a last century concept.
Post a Comment