 |
Transcript
PRESS CONFERENCE– INQUIRY INTO TEACHER TRAINING
Parliament House, Thursday 17th February 2005
Brendan Nelson:
Today I wish to announce that there will be the first national inquiry into the training of teachers that will have been conducted in 25 years. Whilst there have been a number of inquiries of a limited nature, the House of Representatives Standing Committee which is chaired by the Member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, and the Deputy Chair, Rod Sawford, the Labor Member for Port Adelaide, will be conducting a national inquiry into the training of teachers.
Unlike most House of Representatives inquiries, this one will receive any and all support that it requires from my Department. I’ve advised the committee that any assistance they need in terms of research, additional resources, secondment of personnel will be made available to them.
The inquiry specifically will be examining a number of things, in particular the people that are being attracted to teaching in Australia, both from school and in mature age. It will also examine the extent to which there are attrition rates from our universities, the way in which universities prepare the next generation of teachers to deal with students with disabilities, with learning problems, with behavioural problems.
It will also complement the inquiry being conducted by Dr Ken Rowe into the teaching of reading in Australian schools and in part the preparation of teachers to teach our children how to read.
It will examine very carefully the philosophical underpinnings of teacher training in Australia, the extent to which our teachers are being supported in their training when they attend schools for practicum, the way in which schools are actually delivering mentoring and support to teachers that are in training.
It will also examine the appropriateness of the current split between primary and secondary education. And overall the committee will be inquiring directly into the way in which teachers are being prepared in terms of not just specific skills but the philosophies and scientific rigour of teacher training in Australia.
I have in the three years or more that I have been Australia’s Minister for Education – I fully understand that apart from parents, it is teachers that most influence and inform the lives of children becoming young adults in every sense of the word. There is no doubt in my mind that, whilst it’s not the case in every university in the country, there are problems with teacher training in preparation.
In too many instances I’ve had teacher education faculties described to me as quasi-sociology departments. There is criticism from principals to varying degrees about the standards of graduates that come to them to teach in our schools. There is criticism, as we found through Professor Kwong Lee Dow reporting for the training in terms of science and technology, of the scientific rigour which is undertaken in some education faculties.
I also remain to be convinced that the universities are being fair internally, in terms of funding teacher education faculties. I’ve also – I also understand that the committee will be inquiring into the current structure of teacher education to see whether, for example, there are different models which can and should be developed for teacher training in Australia.
And I would expect that the inquiry will take probably one year to 18 months to complete. This is an inquiry which, as you know, has my full support and encouragement. It is – the terms of reference have been developed by the committee for the purpose of the inquiry. I, of course, am strongly supportive of the terms of reference of the inquiry that will be undertaken.
The inquiry {inaudible} also asked to examine the accreditation of Australian education faculties, the process with which we’ve already commenced with the Deans of Education and the National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership.
The reality is in our country, apart from the care, nurturing and education that we, as parents, provide, the most important people in the lives of our children are teachers. I am concerned that there are problems in the training of teachers in Australia.
We’ve had some, obviously anecdotal, evidence. We have glimpses of the problems in terms of the Ruth Fielding-Barnsley research from the Queensland University of Technology which, as you know, found that 56% of final year teachers in training in early career teachers could not identify from four choices a syllable; three-quarters could not identify the word sounds in words. We also had the product of the education system in the first year students at the University of New England recently where a quarter were not able to pass successfully the year 8 maths exam and none could achieve 100%.
That’s not to suggest that all those that are leading teacher education faculties are not of a high standard, but there is no doubt in my mind that there is a problem in terms of standards, scientific and academic rigour and indeed the resourcing of education faculties.
And if we want to be world-class country and educate the very best Australians that we possibly can, then we’ve got to get to the heart of it. And in my opinion, that’s teacher education.
Some of you will say, well, some will argue well why would you have the House of Representatives Standing Committee conduct such an inquiry. Some will no doubt want to know why don’t I simply commission a team of so-called experts to undertake this. I have an army of so-called experts giving me advice every day. I take some of it.
I think it’s time that we had a committee such as this which will, as I say, receive additional resourcing if it requests it which comprises ten men and women in a cross-party form, all of whom are parents, four of whom were teachers, who can approach this issue with an open mind and get in my opinion to the bottom of the problem.
So I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Journalist:
Dr Nelson, doesn’t this inquiry risk being seen as an ideologically driven attempt to bash teachers? And if your chief problem with teachers that you believe that many of them are Labor voters, that many of them are basically the Wayne Sawyers of the world, that aren’t enamoured of the Howard Government.
Brendan Nelson:
Well, in fact those of you who have heard me speak on these issues before, for a number of years I have maintained that the single most important challenge that our country faces in education is how do we raise the status of the teaching profession? How do we raise the respect society has for teaching as a profession? And whilst the teachers themselves have strong industrial representation, they have very poor and professional representation across Australia.
Unlike other professions, teachers have no control over the training of teachers. They have no capacity to get people out of the profession that are not meeting high standards, nor have they currently determined what high national standards will be.
The terms of reference of the inquiry have been developed in a cross-party basis by the House of Representatives Standing Committee. I have agreed to those terms of reference, and the most important thing is that we have high quality committed teachers who are keeping up to date and have, if you like, an approach to teaching which is deeply rooted in a culture of learning.
This, the suggestion that in some way this is some sort of – it would be quite wrong to suggest in any sense that this is an attack on the teaching profession.
The teaching profession should welcome this, and what I’m trying to do, perhaps in a sense using my former profession of medicine as some sort of template, is to bring the same kind of professionalism to teachers, because goodness knows they need it.
Journalist:
But even the QUT research that you’re fond of quoting, the researcher who conducted that research believes that you use it in a misleading way – the teachers were, it’s not that they can’t find a syllable in a sentence, they were unable to provide a technical definition. I mean, have you gone back and had a look at that research considering what the concerns of that researcher has been?
Brendan Nelson:
Well, let’s just remember what the research was actually about. There were 340 final year under-graduate teachers in training; early career teachers, and teachers in specialist areas in literacy who were asked ten multiple choice questions. They were asked to choose from four options to describe essentially a unit of pronunciation containing a vowel, and 56% were not able to identify that as a syllable.
The researcher herself, when asked about my representation of the research, the researcher herself said, and I quote: “the test found 56% of teachers weren’t able to give a definition of a syllable, but Dr Nelson has claimed that half of the teachers didn’t know what a syllable was. It’s one of those things we know intuitively, but when we have to explain it, we can’t”.
I mean, the whole purpose of teaching is to explain to students exactly what a concept is. Whilst the average person may not be able to differentiate a grapheme from a syllable, you would expect that almost all, if not all teachers who have been well-trained can not only identify a syllable, but can actually explain it.
As parents we expect teachers to explain complex concepts to our children in terms that they can understand.
The researcher herself has made the indictment of whatever is happening in teacher education faculties.
Journalist:
Minister, will this inquiry look at performance-based pay for teachers?
Brendan Nelson:
The inquiry itself will have the remit to examine whatever it thinks is appropriate to see that we have the highest standard of teacher education preparation in Australia.
It will be a matter for the committee itself to determine whether it wishes to go into that. One of the terms of reference for the inquiry will give the committee the opportunity to look at the concept of performance-based pay for those who teach within education faculties.
One of the terms of reference will allow the committee to actually look at who is training the next generation of teachers; how are those people actually chosen; how are they rewarded?
If we want the best doctors or the best podiatrists or the best journalists in the country, we need world-class people teaching them.
What is the standard of the people who are actually teaching our next generation of teachers? And to the extent that that’ll be informed by remuneration, industrial and performance issues, I will expect the inquiry will be looking at that.
Journalist:
Dr Nelson, you made reference to the description of teaching skills as sociology in the department, could you just expand on that? What do you mean?
Brendan Nelson:
Well one of the – again, the need for the inquiry is anecdotally what is put to me by Deans of Science and in other faculties in universities - frequently is they describe education faculties as, and I quote, “quasi-sociology departments”.
In other words – and I don’t by the way, I suspect it was not ever any other way – that there are people who work in, shall I say, hard scientific areas in universities who frequently are critical of those who work in humanities, social sciences, and indeed teacher education faculties.
One of the concerns, which I have asked the committee to actually get to the bottom of, is whether there is any substance to those criticisms.
For example, when you think about, when you think that a quarter of the students beginning their teacher education degree at one university can’t pass the Year 8 math’s exam, whatever teaching they were receiving in their secondary education, has led them to a situation where they’re not able to do that.
Now, what we’re trying to do here is to make sure that we get to the bottom in terms of quality, bottom of it in terms of quality and scientific rigour. So...
Journalist:
Are you talking about these departments just not having enough science, or there something bad about being a sociology department of itself?
Brendan Nelson:
Well, those who follow my round, Michelle, will know that one of the things I’m strongest on is support for humanities and social sciences, both in research and indeed in teaching, and those who are generally critical of those areas I’m very quick to jump on them.
The concern that is, the perception that’s held and the concern that anecdotally comes to me far too often is that instead of scientific rigour that’s being applied, whether it’s in the teaching of teachers, to teaching maths, or in reading, or in science, or in a number of other areas that there is far too much emphasis on the sociology of teaching and all that that entails and not enough emphasis on the hard sciences which we as parents expect teachers to be equipped with when they actually go into classrooms.
So what this is all about, this is not about me as the Minister, or others throughout the country making uninformed assertions about what does or doesn’t happen in education faculties, it’s about ten men and women who are essentially lay people – four of whom have experience as educators themselves, all of whom are parents, supported with people who have got expertise - actually having a look at this. We need to get to the bottom of this.
Journalist:
Dr Nelson, you say you’re worried about funding for teacher education, particularly in universities. Isn’t it the case that there’s been some correspondence in relation to your own $100 million teacher training fund that you were talking about even on Sunday where the deans said they’re going to roll that into general budgets, the money is not necessarily is going to go where it was planned to, and, secondly, aren’t you also risking starving education departments in universities by freezing HECS and thereby meaning that those, and even some educators have complained, downgrading those degrees and not providing those departments with enough money to provide better teaching?
Brendan Nelson:
Well one of the things that I have asked the committee to inquire into is to follow the money trail - and to follow the money trail from the university bank account into the education faculty.
I am suspicious that in more than a few universities, the education faculties are not receiving all of the funds that are actually allocated to them.
I’ve asked the committee to also carefully examine where every last dollar of that additional $109 million is actually going to support practicum, where the undergraduates are actually going to classrooms to spend a period time, and it’s rather interesting that having spent certainly two years being criticised for allowing universities to set their own HECS charges the Council of Deans of Education has been critical of me for not allowing any increase to HECS for teacher training.
The reason for doing that was to provide even more incentives in terms of pricing for people to apply for teacher training. The committee will examine that in the course of its inquiry.
Journalist:
How is this inquiry differ from the Kwong Lee Dow and has the Government responded to those recommendations a year after it’s been released.
Brendan Nelson:
Kwong Lee Dow’s inquiry specifically looked at science, technology, ICT and maths, and how we can best equip Australia with world class scientists, with teachers who are inspired and committed to teaching in those particular areas.
I’ve announced a $39 million program which will fund at $50,000 each 500 school clusters across the country to bring medium sized technology and scientific based businesses into schools themselves, and if you like, transfer of teachers in and out of schools into business and vice versa.
We’re also funding 1300 science undergraduates in early career science researchers to spend time mentoring in Australian schools.
We invested initially $10 million from the {inaudible} from our Australian Quality Teaching Program’s $10 million to establish the National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership at the Australian National University which is essentially owned by the teaching profession and run by the teaching profession to set and drive national performance standards in both leadership in schools, that’s principals, and in teachers. So they’re three of the probably the most significant responses we’ve made to Kwong Lee Dow’s report.
Journalist:
(Inaudiable) wait until we get a final outcome from this inquiry?
Brendan Nelson:
Well this inquiry is looking at something which is obviously at the heart of teaching, but whilst it traverses some of the area for example being dealt with by Ken Rowe and the Reading Inquiry and some of the areas addressed in part by Kwong Lee Dow, this unashamedly is looking at teacher training and preparation: who gets into teacher education; who drops out; why they drop out; how they’re being taught whilst they’re there; who’s actually teaching them; what philosophy and scientific rigour underwrites that; how is teacher education being financed; how are teachers in training being supported when they actually go and spend time in classrooms; and then of course as a result of that, what sort of quality people are coming into these classrooms of the country.
Journalist:
There’s reports today that New South Wales principals have been given power to recruit their own teachers. Do you welcome that, and should it be expanded...
Brendan Nelson:
Thanks for asking me that. One of the many conditions on the $33 billion of federal government funding that will flow into government and non-government schools over the next four years, one of those conditions is that principals will have a say over who teaches in their school. Today the principal of a New South Wales government school has no choice over who teaches in the school. The educational politburo sends ten teachers to a school and tells the principal they’re all terrific, take them. How can you guarantee a quality education for children if you have no say over who teaches in your school? I welcome the response of the New South Wales government in response to one of a number of funding conditions which must be met if it is to receive Commonwealth government funding for government schools in New South Wales.
Journalist:
Dr Nelson, how worried are you about the ugly parent syndrome in Australian schools and reports that fathers are charging into classrooms – there’s a report in The Herald Sun today threatening other students in relation to bullying claims. I mean, do teachers and students need more protection from parents in Australian schools that are basically out of control?
Brendan Nelson:
Well there are two things. One is, and the inquiry by the way as you know is looking at the preparation of teachers to deal with such situations, only 36% of recently graduated teachers in a recent survey that we commissioned felt that they’d been adequately trained to deal with this and similar incidents. The other thing which is extremely important – some principals say to me the kids are terrific, it’s just a pity about some of the parents. One of the things extremely important which I know there’s been criticism of it, is the national values education framework which again is a condition of funding.
We are about to provide about $1600 to each school in the country to sit down with their parents and actually talk about the values of that school community, how they should be reflected in the attitudes and behaviour of teachers, how they should explicitly inform education of students and therein of course what might be reasonable expectations for parents.
Something has happened in Australia such that over a generation we have some adults who think that it’s perfectly reasonable to barge into a classroom to verbally and even at time physically abuse a teacher. We’ve got parents, as Mr Latham reminded us two years ago, parents at sporting matches in Australia who somehow think they have licence to verbally and physically abuse umpires and referees and sporting games. One of the ways of addressing that is to see that in education from its very beginning is inculcated values because in the end, this has been said in the past, character is higher than intellect.
Thanks very much.
ENDS
|
