in the classroom
profession. Largely that's so the public
can have confidence in the teachers that
are teaching our kids in schools, and so
that's really got to stay in place.
We've got some standards that we
have to adhere to, and I think that's
a really good place for the teaching
standards to be.
The problem then comes if you have
people like tradespeople teaching
woodwork, metalwork or any of those
sorts of trades from the vocational
sector – they are at a mismatch with the
education qualifications for teachers.
So, where a nurse has actually done a
graduate degree, they could probably
go and do a Master in Teaching because
they have an undergraduate degree.
The typical track for a tradesperson
is that they've probably done an
apprenticeship, they've got their ticket,
and they've worked for some years.
While you can give some credit for their
experience, it still doesn't bring them up
to having – as required by the standards
– at least a four-year undergraduate
degree, which includes two full years of
education study.
Many people who want to change
careers can't sustain themselves for that
long, in terms of education, because
these courses are full-time.
I suppose what Simon Birmingham is
proposing is how do we actually include
these people who have really good skills,
but not necessarily teaching skills?
I should say that training somebody is
different from educating somebody, and
teachers are about education.
So the real issue is how to get these
people into schools with the valuable
skill set they have. There are some
workarounds across the country, but
they're temporary.
In Victoria, for example, they have
the permission to teach. So, if the
school can't find anybody with the
skill set required, as they often can't
in the trade sector, then the principal
can ask for permission to teach for a
particular tradesperson, as long as they're
supervised by a registered teacher. So,
the tradesperson doesn't have the sole
responsibility for the class, the registered
teacher does.
The permission to teach in Victoria
is extended for three years, and you
are expected to work towards getting
a t eacher registration or qualification.
So I suppose in that sense, it's actually
supporting people, because they can be
employed under permission to teach,
and they can engage and study at the
same time. It's not ideal, but it's certainly
one pathway we've got.
Do you think there's another way we
can make tradespeople more compatible
with schools?
Well, the vocational sector and the
education sector are sort of at odds with
each other – one's about training and
one's about education.
I suppose we've got to make sure we
uphold the standards, so we've got to
start thinking about how we recognise
the skill set of people that come from
the trades, and whether there is a
framework we can develop that will
deem equivalence or recognise the
experience that they've got, and then we
can say, "Well, what else do they need on
top of that?"
They probably need at least two full
years of education because they wouldn't
have had that.
These are some of the plans people
need to start thinking about. How do
we get a more diverse skill set in our
teachers, to match the diverse skill sets
that our students need?
That's a pretty big challenge, if you're
going to maintain the standards.
It's an admirable idea to say they
would like to fill in teachers' shortages
and bring more practical skills to the
classroom, but do you think such an
idea would lower the standards of
our teachers?
Well, I think we've got to ensure that
people are being judged on a fair and
equitable basis, and that we're making
sure we're doing some work on what is
equivalent to what, so you're actually
judging apples and apples rather than
apples and oranges, which is currently
what we're trying to do.
I think there's some significant work to
be done in understanding the different
approaches. The vocational sector
is a lot more focused on training of
particular skills, whereas schools are
far more focused on education, which
is far broader. And the pedagogy and
approaches you use become important,
so it's really about encouraging those
people in supportive ways into teaching
while still maintaining and making
sure they reach the standards.
We've done the same for other
pathways. Teach for Australia, for
example, which is supposedly targeting
difficult-to-staff areas and bringing
in high-performing people from the
working community, again to meet the
standards, is a two-year program, where
people are working at a reduced level
and being paid to do that, but they still
have to meet all the standards of the
professional teacher. So, there's still the
requirement for the two years of study,
but they do it in a very different way.
We've just got to be really mindful of
how we induct people into the two-year
minimum requirement of education
that you have, whether it's graduate or
undergraduate level.
Are you hopeful that we'll find a solution
that will be a win-win for both schools
and tradies?
I hope so. I mean, I've been really
committed to try and get vocational
education people into the school system,
because I think they're fundamentally
important.
There is a lot of work that needs
to happen in terms of building up
the vocational education sector and
Training somebody is
different from educating
somebody, and teachers
are about education.
supporting it so that it's judged as a
viable equivalence pathway to more
mainstream schooling, or general
schooling.
So I think the work really needs to
be done in that, because it's often not
seen at the same level, and I think that's
borne out by the fact that most people
would go from school and think the
only viable tertiary pathway is university.
Well, that's a sad day, because the
vocational education sector is vastly
important to our country, and so we
need to build its equivalence in terms of
viable pathways. ■
educationreview.com.au | 19