The Positioning of Quality and Expertise in Initial Teacher Education: Policy Enactment in the Australian Context
Saved in:
| Title: | The Positioning of Quality and Expertise in Initial Teacher Education: Policy Enactment in the Australian Context |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Mary Ryan (ORCID |
| Source: | Australian Educational Researcher. 2025 52(3):1997-2020. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 24 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Educational Quality, Expertise, Preservice Teacher Education, Educational Policy, Foreign Countries, Teacher Effectiveness, Educational Improvement, Educational Change, Stakeholders |
| Geographic Terms: | Australia |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s13384-024-00796-z |
| ISSN: | 0311-6999 2210-5328 |
| Abstract: | Teacher quality and teacher education improvement have been central discourses for at least two decades in global education. In Australia, despite the pervasive nature of these discussions, there is a lack of substantial evidence indicating the existence of a problem in this regard. Policies aimed at enhancing the 'preparedness' of teacher graduates and elevating the 'quality' of ITE programs have nonetheless emerged as prevalent solutions over the past decade. The latest enactment of reforms in the policy chain is the "Strong Beginnings" report from the Teacher Education Expert Panel. In this paper, we align with Ball's perspective that policy should be viewed as a dynamic process rather than a presumed, ready-made solution to a problem. We utilise systematic conceptual coding using Leximancer to enable a nuanced exploration of the understandings, practices, and conditions of influence for the policy actors inscribed in the TEEP report. We also analyse concept frequency and collocation in the final Strong Beginnings report, noting two main propositions: first, that there is a problem with quality in ITE; and second, that practice is foregrounded in professionalisation. We highlight the consistencies and contradictions within the discourses of the final report and the submissions from policy actors that contributed to this policy enactment process. We suggest that evidence is used when it suits a policy position, but ignored if it disrupts the platform position. We conclude by arguing that the policy actors in this policy enactment process should be afforded the professional authority to continue a well-established process of continual improvement. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1487852 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Teacher quality and teacher education improvement have been central discourses for at least two decades in global education. In Australia, despite the pervasive nature of these discussions, there is a lack of substantial evidence indicating the existence of a problem in this regard. Policies aimed at enhancing the 'preparedness' of teacher graduates and elevating the 'quality' of ITE programs have nonetheless emerged as prevalent solutions over the past decade. The latest enactment of reforms in the policy chain is the "Strong Beginnings" report from the Teacher Education Expert Panel. In this paper, we align with Ball's perspective that policy should be viewed as a dynamic process rather than a presumed, ready-made solution to a problem. We utilise systematic conceptual coding using Leximancer to enable a nuanced exploration of the understandings, practices, and conditions of influence for the policy actors inscribed in the TEEP report. We also analyse concept frequency and collocation in the final Strong Beginnings report, noting two main propositions: first, that there is a problem with quality in ITE; and second, that practice is foregrounded in professionalisation. We highlight the consistencies and contradictions within the discourses of the final report and the submissions from policy actors that contributed to this policy enactment process. We suggest that evidence is used when it suits a policy position, but ignored if it disrupts the platform position. We conclude by arguing that the policy actors in this policy enactment process should be afforded the professional authority to continue a well-established process of continual improvement. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0311-6999 2210-5328 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s13384-024-00796-z |
