Longitudinal Teacher Education and Workforce Study (ltews) Final Report

3.4.1 Attraction to teaching

The table below shows attraction to teaching for graduate respondents in the three Graduate Teacher Surveys. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with twelve statements about what attracted them to teaching. Their responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, to disagree and strongly disagree. Table 43 positive responses (agree and strongly agree) and negative responses (disagree and strongly disagree) have been grouped, and those who neither agreed nor disagreed have been omitted. This shows, in a clear way, the differences of agreement to statements in the list.

Table 43. Graduate teachers – by reasons for wanting to become a teacher

	Round 1		Round 2		Round 3
	A/SA	D/SD	A/SA	D/SD	A/SA	D/SD
Always wanted to teach/work with children	73.1	11.0	71.3	12.0	70.1	12.0
Advice of careers advisors/ teachers/ parents	35.5	33.9	38.3	31.2	37.7	33.4
ATAR^5 in the range for the teacher education program	12.7	57.7	12.8	56.7	11.3	58.3
Location of the campus was convenient	44.0	35.6	42.6	36.8	40.9	37.6
Wanted to make a difference	90.2	2.7	90.2	2.5	89.2	2.5
Wanted to work in an area of specialisation or interest	75.3	7.0	74.8	6.5	76.4	5.9
Qualification is broadly accepted here and overseas	63.6	12.5	63.9	13.5	62.2	13.5
Availability of school holidays	50.7	22.8	50.7	23.7	50.2	24.4
Attractive pay and conditions	32.0	37.9	29.0	41.4	28.2	43.4
Strong employment opportunities	43.0	32.2	48.5	27.8	46.4	30.5
Parent/family member is a teacher	25.3	55.5	27.5	53.6	27.1	54.6
Teaching was a back-up plan	14.7	64.8	15.5	66.7	14.6	67.9

Note: A - agree; SA - strongly agree; D - disagree; SD - strongly disagree

The item in the table above with the highest percentage of graduate teachers who stated they strongly agreed or agreed with is 'Wanted to make a difference' (approximately 90 per cent across all three rounds). The next two items on which graduate teachers strongly agreed or agreed were 'Wanted to work in an area of specialisation' (approximately 75 per cent) and 'Always wanted to teach children’ (approximately 71 per cent). The item in the table with the highest percentage of graduate teachers who stated they strongly disagreed or disagreed with was 'Teaching was a back-up plan' (approximately 66 per cent), followed by 'ATAR in the rank for the teacher education program' (approximately 57 per cent). Interestingly, there was little difference in responses across the three survey rounds – noting that whilst there was a portion of respondents who did participate in more than one round, there were 62.5 per cent of respondents, over the three surveys, who only participated once. The findings support the previous research discussed above.

Principals’ views on attracting graduates

The three rounds of Principal Surveys gathered information on the difficulty in attracting graduate teachers by school location. Figure 16 shows that overall, principals in 16 to 20 per cent of schools in the three survey rounds had difficulty attracting graduate teachers, but this was very different when schools where grouped by location.

Figure . Difficulty in attracting graduate teachers – by school location

Metropolitan schools had the least difficulty attracting graduates, with only 6 to 11 per cent of schools in these locations experiencing difficulty. Schools in regional locations had between 14 to 26 per cent of their principals stating difficulty in attracting graduate teachers. In remote locations, about 40 per cent of principals in Rounds 1 and 3 stated that their schools had difficulty attracting graduates. In Round 2, this was only 14 per cent – but this is due to the small number of schools in this location in Round 2, which numbered only 12.

In free text responses, principals or school leaders were asked if they had difficulties attracting graduates to their schools. While some noted that their state or territory system meant they had little say over who was appointed to their schools (e.g. ‘we take who we are given’) or various policies meant that some teachers had precedence for employment (e.g. the transfer point system), many indicated that they had a high number of applicants for positions including experienced teachers and new graduates. They believed that their schools were attractive to graduates because of the location and accessibility (transport etc.), their partnership arrangements with universities, their reputation for high performance and/or the latest technologies, their newness, and their size (e.g. a small school). In some cases, incentives made the school more attractive, but it was noted that not everyone who was attracted by incentives was a quality candidate.

While many principals reported receiving 50–100 applications for positions at their schools, many reported difficulties in attracting graduates with the areas of mathematics, physics, English, LOTE, accounting, manual arts and psychology being specifically noted as hard to staff. Difficulties often related to location and the perceived ‘toughness’ of the school (as measured by ICSEA scores and other SES measures, or simply through word-of mouth).

Principals expressed concern that many graduates do not want to leave the major capital cities or coastal regions where they have grown up and/or completed their teacher preparation program, and that if they did, it was often only for a short time, therefore creating a constant churn in rural, remote, and even some regional areas. Being away from family, the lack of social aspects that a significant number of young people want to be involved in (the ‘Metro’ mindset), the high cost of living and lack of availability of accommodation (this was particularly noted in areas with a mining presence), were also noted.

Strategies that principals employed to gain high quality graduates included advertising early (‘Advertising early gains better applicants.’ ‘The cream of the crop is super; the averages can be hard work’). Others actively sought out targeted graduates drawing on their prior knowledge of them (‘seen them during a practicum or internship’), or recommendations from colleagues.

Table 44 below shows the principal or school leader responses as to whether or not their school had difficulty attracting teachers.

Table 44. Difficulty for schools in attracting graduate teachers

	Round 1		Round 2		Round 3
Difficulty attracting graduate teachers	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	25	20.0	48	15.7	62	16.8
No	100	80.0	257	84.3	307	83.2
TOTAL	125	100.0	305	100	369	100

Up to a fifth of principals over the three rounds of surveys stated they had difficulty attracting graduate teachers, but as the principal response numbers were fairly small, generalisations should not be drawn.

The table below shows principals’ plans to recruit new graduate teachers in 2013. This question was only asked of principals in the survey round at the end of 2012.

Table 45. Plan to recruit new graduate teachers in 2013, Round 2 only

	Round 2
	N	%
Yes	177	52.8
No	104	31.0
Unsure	54	16.1
TOTAL	335	100.0

Over half of the principals (52.8 per cent) planned to recruit new graduate teachers in 2013. Thirty-one per cent had no plans to recruit new graduate teachers, and 16.1 per cent were unsure. This supports the earlier discussion in relation to principals liking to employ graduates.