Dialogue: Let's just get on and fix teacher training faults

Those involved in the education of teachers know what needs to be improved. So why, asks JOHN LANGLEY*, is there yet another parliamentary select committee inquiry?

I have received a letter notifying me that Parliament's education and science select committee intends conducting an inquiry into teacher education. This is an interesting way to spend taxpayer funds when the ink on the last review, conducted by the Education Review Office, is not yet dry.

The review could stop now. What needs to be done is known.

During the past decade there have been seemingly endless reviews of teacher education. None has produced much of value or been responsible for any significant changes. Any changes that have occurred have come from other quarters.

Also, the political climate towards teaching and teacher education has been one of relentless criticism. Can any select committee really be objective? The fact that the term "inquiry" has been used places this whole operation in the same category as a train crash even before it begins.

So, why have another inquiry or review? Reviews are often things we do when we don't know what else to do or are not prepared to do what needs to be done.

I do not wish to take anything away from the select committee, which produced the comprehensive report on literacy, but teacher education simply does not need another review.

Many challenges are faced by teacher education, and there are areas where we need to look to improve the programmes we run. We know what they are. What we need is the backing and fortitude from our policymakers to move the process along, not have another round of navel-gazing.

So, what is it that needs to be done? Six areas come to mind without much effort. There are probably others. The first is that we need to provide the conditions that will enable teaching to attract the best possible applicants.

The higher the quality of those entering teacher education, the more likely they are to be effective teachers. This is constantly threatened in an environment in which the ethos for so many years has been keen competition. Many providers have had to face issues of viability, and there has been an incentive to take applicants who might be marginal.

A second need is for teacher education programmes to be supported to deliver what they need to deliver, not watered down into shorter programmes to entice students. Many children who were exceptions in most classrooms 20 years ago are now part of the norm. The skills teachers need in behaviour management and inclusive education (to name but two areas) are far beyond those required then.

Add to that the disadvantages many children bring to school in language and literacy development and it is not hard to see the added demands on the preparation of teachers.

Teacher education programmes need the time and resources to meet these extra demands, not to be forced to try to find ways to reduce other aspects of their programmes to accommodate them.

One of the most important aspects of teacher education is the practicum. Here students make the links between theory, research and practice. They learn to assess the needs of children and young people and to teach to those needs. It is also here that students learn about how centres and schools work and their place in that.

Central to the practicum is the associate teacher. To a large extent the quality of the practicum experience depends on the associate. These teachers need to be not only highly skilled and knowledgeable practitioners, but also skilled supervisors. The two are not the same.

Teacher-educators depend heavily on associates. They can make or break a practicum. Yet it seems clear from an abundance of evidence provided by students and other teachers that the standard of associates varies widely.

Some struggle with their own performance, let alone being responsible for the development of a student teacher. Some principals and supervising teachers appear to nominate any teacher who wants to be an associate, while others take more care.

Part of the problem here is the heavy demand placed on centres and schools for placements. But it is no excuse. To place a student with a poor associate is likely to do harm, certainly little or no good.

I would propose that the term "lead teacher" should replace the term "associate teacher" and become a credential. It could be gained through excellent practice as a teacher, the completion of papers in supervision and, once gained, carry an addition to salary. The teacher education provider, in association with principals and supervisors, should award the credential.

Being a lead teacher should represent excellence, someone who has been judged good enough to be entrusted with the important task of supervising students. It should be something to aspire to, as in the medical profession.

In some cases today it is seen as a burden and a chore. This has to change. Yes, it would cost money, but what better way to acknowledge excellence within the profession and to lift the standard of supervision that our student teachers get? We know this. We don't need another review to tell us.

The fourth need is to have clear milestones in programmes, beyond which students do not advance unless they have demonstrated that they should. Many providers do this now, others do not.

It is important that students who have not achieved what they should at a particular part of their programme do not move on until they have. Again we know this. It is not a matter of finding it out again, but of holding institutions which advance poor students accountable.

Another need is for teacher education to have the resource base to enable its staff to engage in the activities that will lead to excellence in teaching, research and scholarship.

The most important factor in ensuring quality in teacher education, apart from the quality of the students, is that of the staff. And there is much more to it than simply being a good classroom teacher. Teacher-educators require not only knowledge and experience as teachers, but also academic strength in the field of teacher education. They require a comprehensive knowledge of relevant research, the ability to undertake research and to engage in scholarship to a high level.

Right now this is difficult because the funding formula for teacher education simply does not allow sufficient time to be spent on research and scholarship. Those who do it usually use a significant amount of their own time.

Finally, teacher education would benefit enormously from a funding formula that rewards quality, not quantity. Instead of funding bums on seats why is it not possible to place an expectation on providers that they can demonstrate that their graduates are doing the things they were taught to do, and that what they were taught was what they need to be effective teachers?

It should not be too difficult to develop ongoing research programmes within institutions that would enable them to draw down data on the performance of their graduates. Those that do, and can demonstrate the success of their graduates, get acknowledgment in their funding. Those that do not get no funding.

Developments in teacher education need to be made on the basis of research and good practice, and using the skills and knowledge of the many good people who work in the field. We know what needs to be done. Let's spend our resources and time doing it.

* Dr John Langley is the principal of the Auckland College of Education.