FACULTY FOCUS
campusreview.com.au
Wide of the mark
Experts slam standing
committee report on teaching
as a ‘missed opportunity’.
By Wade Zaglas
A
report tabled in parliament on the
status of the teaching profession
has been heavily criticised by
teaching experts, with one calling it a
“missed opportunity”.
The report was prepared by the House
of Representatives Standing Committee on
Employment, Education and Training.
“The students in our schools deserve
better,” said Professor Michele Simons, dean
of education at Western Sydney University.
Simons’ research interest is in workplace
development, and she recently co-authored
a book with two other education experts,
entitled Attracting and Keeping the Best
Teachers: Issues and Opportunities.
“The recently released summary of
the public hearings represents a missed
opportunity to develop a coherent
set of policy initiatives to address the
development of the teaching workforce
in Australia,” she said.
“The report is incomplete. It is piecemeal.
It falls short in its understanding of the
complexity of attracting, retaining and
developing a quality teaching workforce.
“Australia should take care not to
focus on ‘fixing’ parts of the profession
in the hope that this will then permeate
the whole.”
Associate Professor Anna Sullivan from
the University of South Australia has also
hit out at the report, calling it “incomplete”,
“inadequate” and “unhelpful”.
“The status of teachers in Australia should
be taken seriously, but this report provides
an inadequate summary of issues arising
from public hearings,” Sullivan said.
“It basically gives ‘air’ to those that
attended the hearings. The Australian
government should be cautious of
prioritising these opinions and instead seek
an understanding of the research.
“The issues are too important to be
treated in this insignificant way.”
The academic argues that research
highlights “complex reasons” for the status
changes in teaching. She added that knee-
jerk or “poorly conceived” solutions that
were not evidence-based were likely to lead
to negative consequences.
“We don’t need this,” she said.
Meanwhile, Professor Barry Down from
Murdoch University said the report “lacks
evidence and vision”.
The Murdoch academic is a specialist in
teachers’ work, school change and student
engagement. Down has undertaken
extensive research into the factors affecting
early career teacher resilience and the
school environments that are likely to
attract and retain quality teachers in what
the research shows is testing times for
teachers, with proliferating tasks, high-
stakes tests, increased responsibilities and
diverse cohorts.
“The report adds to a very long list of
inquiries into the status of teaching and
what might be done about it,” Down said.
However, he added: “This report appears
to be rushed: it lacks any empirical evidence
or vision for the future of the profession.
“Teachers around the country face an
increasingly complex work environment
driven by external accountabilities,
inspection regimes, political interference
and changing societal conditions.
“The report missed a golden opportunity
to develop a coherent understanding of the
changing nature of teachers’ work and the
kinds of policy settings, resources, actions
and accountability required to enhance the
status of the profession.”
Barbara Preston, a freelance researcher
and PhD candidate form the University
of Canberra who has published many
papers on the teaching workforce, noted
the standing committee’s report failed to
mention anything about the issues facing
replacement teachers and their students.
“The federal government’s report
suggests that ‘proper induction and
mentoring programs’ for graduate teachers
are of vital importance,” she said.
“Yet the majority of graduates enter the
profession on insecure contracts replacing
teachers on leave.
“Such insecure replacement work is
frequently stressful and isolating and
makes effective induction and mentoring
impossible.
“School students spend the equivalent
of around one year of their schooling
being taught by replacement teachers on
insecure contracts – longer for the most
disadvantaged students.”
Preston concluded that replacement
teaching typically adds little in terms of
student learning and this is compounded
when the teaching is conducted by an
inexperienced graduate teacher.
She asserts that replacement contracts
are “disruptive” to both education and
administrative tasks.
“Professionalising replacement teaching
would enhance the effectiveness of those
undertaking it and make the work more
attractive to skilled experienced teachers.
“It would also mean taking replacement
teaching out of the hands of inexperienced
graduate teachers. Instead, these teachers
could be employed on an ongoing basis
and provided with proper induction and
mentoring, enhancing the long-term quality
of the teaching profession.” ■
Associate Professor Anna Sullivan is
chair of the Media Centre for Education
Research Australia (MCERA) board, and
Professor Michele Simons is a director
of the board. They are not commenting
in this capacity, but in their capacity as
experts in this field.
9