Immerse teachers in class reality

NSW Education Minister Sarah Mitchell argues that trainee teachers should begin getting classroom experience at the outset of their qualification and not, as is now the case, at the end of university. It seems such an obviously good idea that many parents may wonder why it isn’t already being done.

Money is part of the reason. Universities too often look on teacher training as a source of subsidy for other, higher prestige activities such as scientific research. Lecturing trainee teachers can be done cheaply but the practicum – the supervised classroom experience – can be costly if done properly. It is often a budget add-on to the degree. The result is that only at the end of their university course do most trainee teachers get a taste of a real, live classroom. If they discover they’re not suited to it or the practicum is poorly run and trainees give up on teaching, there is an obvious waste of time and money.

There is also a problem of culture. Education faculties – whose academics sometimes had short, unhappy careers as classroom teachers – have a tendency to give priority to social justice-style theory. Classroom management and the practicum suffer. Graduate teachers too often emerge with an ideological approach to teaching and a justified feeling of inadequacy in the face of the challenges of classroom management. This is especially a problem for government schools, which are less able to rid themselves of difficult students. On international measures, our classrooms have a serious problem with the kind of disruption that damages learning.

So, Ms Mitchell’s idea is certainly worth careful thought about how to make it work. It’s a good sign that NSW and Victoria more generally seem to be collaborating, and that there is some hope of a better, nationwide approach to teacher training and teacher supply. It won’t be easy. Many ministers, state and federal, finish their terms having promised to reform teacher training and failing.

Ms Mitchell has met some university vice-chancellors and says they are open to reform. But will their central administration change the funding model so there are adequate resources left to the education faculty, assuming it is willing and competent to give much more attention to the practicum? At the moment, co-ordination of the practicum is often outsourced to retired teachers as casual work.

What is needed is a more intense collaboration between education faculty academics, the practicum co-ordinator and the school where trainee teachers are sent. One model is to appoint a highly skilled, well-paid teacher-academic at the heart of the faculty who has the time, resources and seniority to move between faculty and school, ensuring the best possible experience for trainee teachers.

The other crucial task for that person would be to get more value out of what happens in the practicum classroom and its connection with what is being taught in the faculty. It may be that the practicum demands a different emphasis in the coursework of the trainee teachers. This richer, more dynamic learning over four years should produce graduate teachers who have a solid appreciation of classroom realities as well as the skills and knowledge to help students thrive.

But this will require a change to the dominant culture of education faculties and their philosophy of teaching. We have to de-emphasise the model of the teacher as a social construction activist and put more emphasis on the knowledge and teaching methods for the core subjects of school, especially English, science and mathematics. Otherwise, our schools will continue to sink in international standing.