Dr Allan Taylor ACET National Secretary,
16 Moore Street, TORONTO 2283 NSW
Retired as Professor and Dean (1/1/96)
Faculty of Education
The University of Newcastle.
We therefore submit three documents which we ask to be tabled for deliberation by the
committee. The first is titled Preservice Technology Education, the second is
titled Technology Teachers in Training in Australia, and the third is titled Crisis
in Training of Technology Teachers in NSW (a paper endorsed by one of ACET's
affiliates).
This Council requests that these submissions are examined in detail as part of the
Committee's deliberations, and we trust that the concerns expressed therein might find
resolution through the outcomes of your Review.
With regard to the committee Terms of Reference 1:-
ACET would contend that the Higher Education Sector is not meeting Australia's social or cultural needs in the area of teacher education, particuarly with the specialist area of technology teacher education. The unlateral decision of the Australian Education Council to move away from undergraduate teacher education programs into graduate models (AEC, 1990, Exec. Summary, pii) has led to a situation where technology teacher education programs are being terminated, and where the supply potential of new graduate models in the technology area are significantly reduced. (refer submission 1, p2-3; submission 2, p11; and submission 3)
Terms of Reference 2:-
At the present time many of this country's universities are not creative, nor capable of flexibility to change (refer submission 1, p1-2) The AEC decision to develop teacher education programs on a double degree graduate model seems to have been implemented across the country to all forms of teacher education (primary, and secondary areas). There has not been the flexibility of thinking within this process that would allow individual Universities to see that certain teacher education specialities would not be adequately cater for. This has certainly been the case in technology teacher education (refer submission 2, p3-10)
Terms of Reference 3:-
In general, University Faculties of Education are funded by their University cost centres on a factor around 1.1 or 1.2, a factor that is essentially the same as Faculties of Arts. If there are programs within Education that have course structures involving the knowledge and application of technology, and which require laboratories of machines and equipment, the cost of the Facculty is significantly in excess of the normal funding level. Faculty management committees have successfully used this argument as part of their means of terminating undergraduate technology teacher educationprograms. There has been the suggestion that this lack of differential is not a reflection of the DEET formula, but this has been denied in certain universities. More flexible funding mechanisms must be developed and implemented within the University structure to accommodate the existence of different types of programs within individual faculties (refer submission 1, p4; submission 2, p6 and 12)
The Australian Council for Education through Technology (ACET) being a council of professional technology teacher associations across all states and territories of Australia is deeply concerned about reports of a rapid decline in quality and quantity of technology teacher education in Australia since the introduction of the "Unified National System". ACET's National Committee on Technology Teacher Education received anecdotal reports from delegates at the biennial National Technology Teacher Education Forums in January 1996. The executive committee has recently received reports from its delegates in most states/territories confirming the earlier reports.
Delegates believe that the national trend toward "downsizing" and/or significantly modifying pre service teacher training programs are the result of decisions more in the interests of universities than in the interests of future pupils and students studying in the Technology Key Learning Area. Delegates at the 1996 National Technology Teacher Education Forum were sufficiently concerned to bring the matter to the attention of the Council with a recommendation for ACET to seek political counsel and assistance.
The Technology Key Learning Area of the curriculum is diverse in its scope while unified in approach by its interdependent strands: "Designing, Making, Appraising (DMA)", "Information", "Materials" and "Systems". Like some other learning areas (in particular the study of society and environment), technology education, is both multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary in nature, although a number of renowned international academics argue that technology in its broad sense (the development of knowledge, skills and values of the "made" world) meets all of the criteria of a discipline.
The more liberal view of higher education developed in the former advanced education sector was supportive of research and teaching in multi/trans-discipliIlary fields of higher education. Throughout the 1980s most CAEs preparing teachers for a career in technology education developed "integrated" four-year degree courses leading to the award of BEd(xx) or equivalent (where xx is a specialisation within the field of technology education). The quality of technology teacher graduates was perceived to be increasing and this perception continued into the early 1990s. While professional integrated degrees were accepted by universities at the time of amalgamation, less than ten years later they are rapidly being replaced by end-on models. This may be appropriate for those aspects of the school curriculum that have a close affinity with the traditional university disciplines such as languages, mathematics, science and the humanities but is not appropriate for transdisciplinarv areas of the curriculum such as technology education.
In general, Australian universities, being conservatively discipline based in the Oxford-Cambridge model, are uncomfortable with multi/transdisciplinary departments and courses and are generally unsupportive of developing technology as a discipline in the broad sense - preferring to constrain technology to engineering studies and/or information technology. Under the pressure of reduced university funding we find that many technology teacher education programs are being abandoned or forced to fit pre-amalgamation university discipline structures without due regard for the consequences for school based education. Vice Chancellors are removing the control of the structure and content of technology teacher education programs from the profession and its supporting infrastructure of school systems and ministries of education.
The concept of introducing broad based technology programs in primary schools is relatively new and was being developed in primary teacher education by extending the traditional craft base. However rationalisation of primary teacher education within universities has led to a diminution of activity in the field rather than expansion leaving most primary teaching graduates deficient in the technology key learning area. Notwithstanding this, the govermnent report "developing long-term strategies for science and technology in Australia" (1996) recommends that the minister for Science and Education "work with State and Territory governments to incorporate 'technacy ' in primary and secondary school curricula and teaching practice across Australia."(p63). The loss of appropriatelw trained technology teachers from the teaching workforce caused by the decline in technology teacher education programs will make this national goal unattainable.
At the extreme, some universities have abandoned or are considering abandoning the preparation of technology teachers. Others have abandoned the successful integrated four year courses in favour of a first degree (which may or may not be related to technology education) followed by a one or two year general teacher education program with a technology teaching option.
Where external reviews have been commissioned, it is significant to note that none have included technology teacher education expertise despite the presence of such people in senior positions (including professorial level) at sister institutions. Consequently, we see technology teacher education as a casualty of amalgamations and recent funding pressures on universities.
A number of professional associations and individuals throughout Australia are pursuing the associated issues. For example, the Technology Education Federation of Australia (TEFA), brought some of the issues to the attention of Minister, Hon. David Kemp. MP, at a brieF meeting following the launch of "Technology in Education Month" held in Sydney in September.
Independent of the factors contributing to the unwelcome changes to the nature of technology teacher education, the field has been caught in the general "downsizing" of teacher preparation programs across the country. Unfortunately, statistics on the supply of and demand for teachers reaching bureaucrats tends to paint the "broadbrush" picture, with the consequence that recommendations and subsequent decisions rarely reflect the specific needs of particular teaching specialisations. While information on technology teacher supply and demand across the country is sketchy, reports suggest general undersupply which we believe will be exacerbated by increased demand flowing from commonwealth initiatives in school based vocational education and from replacement of an ageing teaching population due to low supply throughout the past 20 years, and reduced supply following withdrawal of university support for the field.
Recognition of the problem by some states/territories - some are developing short courses for teachers to retrain - but the short duration of these courses (19 weeks) means lower skill levels, meaning a very steep learning curve for the teacher when placed in a school. Also they do not address the need to get young new teachers into the workforce. The present and predicted future undersupply of technology teachers in NSW is recognised by the NSW Department of School Education, the NSW Teacher Education Council, and professional technology teacher associations (including the Institute of Technology Education, the Technology Education Association, the Home Economics Institute of Australia, and the Design Education Council of Australia). A number of joint seminars and meetings have been held in 1995/96 to find strategic measures to address the problems.
ACET President, John Gibson, has investigated NSW's position and his findings are presented in the paper Figures Relating to Techllology Teachers in Training ir. NSW (attached).
Delegates to ACET Council and meetings hold grave concern for the quality and supply of future teachers of technology in Australian schools. While ACET in principle supports the autonomy of universities, we find that uncoordinated decision making is acting against the long term interests of pupils in schools. Professional teacher associations appear to have little infiuence on university planning . We therefore: