Longitudinal Teacher Education and Workforce Study (ltews) Final Report

4.2.3 Influence of teacher education programs on career retention or advancement

This section presents findings on whether the nature of graduates’ teacher education programs had any impact on whether they stayed in or left the teaching profession. The data was analysed in various ways to examine this.

First, distinguishing features of teacher education programs were cross-tabulated with variables on retention and advancement in the longitudinal datasets. This cross-tabulation was further analysed by separating the results according to school geographical area (i.e. major city, inner regional, out regional, remote and very remote), school type (i.e. early childhood, primary, secondary and combined) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus (i.e. schools with and without an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus).

Second, graduates' preparation in the seven Australian Professional Standards for Teachers⁹ variables was cross-tabulated with retention and advancement variables. However, the results were not reliable for reasons discussed further below. As such, the findings are supplemented by analysis of the qualitative data. The interaction of these two data sets is important as the longitudinal nature of this question cannot be addressed on the basis of the qualitative data alone.

The nature of teacher education programs was analysed in terms of the distinguishing features of these programs:

• 
  Reflective practice
  
• 
  Quality teaching
  
• 
  Literacy
  
• 
  ICT skills
  
• 
  Supportive learning environments
  
• 
  Practicum visits from academic staff
  
• 
  Numeracy
  
• 
  Linking theory and practice
  
• 
  Content knowledge
  
• 
  Internship
  
• 
  Social justice
  
• 
  Social relationships
  
• 
  School Linkages
  
• 
  CALD learners
  
• 
  Team teaching
  
• 
  Discipline expertise
  
• 
  Community-based learning
  
• 
  Rural education
  
• 
  Distance education
  

These distinguishing features were cross-tabulated with variables on retention and advancement in the longitudinal datasets – looking at Cohort 2 (which tracks changes over the 6-month period from October 2012 to March 2013) and Cohort 3 (which tracks changes over the 12-month period from March 2012 to March 2013). No relationship was found between the distinguishing features of programs and respondents' retention or advancement. The number of respondents in each cell in these calculations was too few, causing standard errors to be too high for the results to be reliable.

In case there was a relationship between distinguishing features of education programs and retention/advancement when the school was taken into account, the cross-tabulation of distinguishing features with retention and advancement was further analysed by separating the results according to:

• 
  school geographical area (i.e. major city, inner regional, out regional, remote and very remote)
  
• 
  school type (i.e. early childhood, primary, secondary and combined)
  
• 
  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus (i.e. schools with and without an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus)
  

The resulting number of respondents in each cell in the calculations for all three of these school characteristics was too small. This increased the size of the standard error so that results were not reliable.

In order to further investigate the nature of teacher education programs and possible influence on graduates' career retention and advancement, graduates' preparation in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers was substituted for the distinguishing features of programs. The same analysis was conducted, cross-tabulating the professional standards variables with retention and advancement variables. Again, no relationship was found, and standard errors in many cells were too large. The two tables below show some results of this cross-tabulated data.

The responses to preparation in the professional standards, which were recorded on a five-point Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’, were grouped into three groups, as follows:

• 
  strongly disagree and disagree were merged into one category named 'Disagree'
  
• 
  strongly agree and agree were merged into one category named 'Agree'
  
• 
  neither agree nor disagree remained a category on its own, and was not used for the purpose of this analysis
  

The first table, Table 70, shows the percentage for graduates who 'Disagree' and 'Agree' that their teacher education program prepared them in three of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers variables, cross-tabulated with retention and attrition (i.e. left teaching employment). The responses in the data below are from those graduates who participated in the two Graduate Teacher Surveys over the six months from October 2012 to March 2013 (Cohort 2).

Table 70. Graduates' level of agreement that their teacher education programs prepared them in the professional standards – by retention and attrition as a teacher in a school

	Know students and how they learn		Know the content and how to teach it		Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning
	Disagree	Agree	Disagree	Agree	Disagree	Agree
	%	%	%	%	%	%
Cohort 2
Retained	95.3	91.7	89.3	92.3	94.5	91.9
Attrition	4.7	8.3	10.7	7.7	5.5	8.1
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

The results show that those who disagreed that their education program prepared them in 'Know students and how they learn' had a higher retention rate than those who agreed their program prepared them in this area (95 per cent compared to 92 per cent). This was also the case for the key area 'Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning', where there was a 95 per cent retention rate for those who disagreed they were prepared in this area, and a 92 per cent retention rate for those who agreed they were prepared in this area. The only area where those in agreement with being prepared had a higher retention rate than those who disagreed they were prepared was in 'Know the content and how to teach it' (92 per cent retention for the 'agrees' and 89 per cent retention for the 'disagrees').

The second table, Table 71, shows the percentages for graduates who 'Disagree' and 'Agree' that their teacher education program prepared them in the three professional standards variables, cross-tabulated with having a leadership position in a school. The responses in the data below are from those graduates who participated in the two Graduate Teacher Surveys over the 12 months from March 2012 to March 2013 (Cohort 3).

Table 71. Graduates' level of agreement that teacher education programs prepared them in the professional standards – by leadership position as a teacher in a school

	Know students and how they learn		Know the content and how to teach it		Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning
	Disagree	Agree	Disagree	Agree	Disagree	Agree
	%	%	%	%	%	%
Cohort 3
Leadership position	30.8	13.9	19.2	12.3	11.5	15.6
No leadership position	69.2	86.1	84.6	77.5	69.2	89.3
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

The results show that those who disagreed that their education program prepared them in 'Know students and how they learn' had a higher percentage with a leadership position in a school than those who agreed their program prepared them in this area (31 per cent compared to 14 per cent). This was also the case for the key area 'Know the content and how to teach it', where 19 per cent of those who disagreed they were prepared in this area were in a leadership position and 12 per cent of those who agreed they were prepared in this area were in a leadership position.

The only key area in the standards where those in agreement with being prepared had a higher percentage in leadership positions than those who disagreed they were prepared was in 'Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning' (16 per cent in a leadership position for the 'agrees' and 11.5 per cent in a leadership position for the 'disagrees').

In case relationships between these professional standards variables were dependent on the characteristics of schools, the results of these cross-tabulations were analysed by the three separate school variables listed above. The resulting number of respondents in each cell for each school variable analysis was again too small to ensure reliable results.

Interview data

The analyses of participant interviews demonstrate that most graduates see themselves as beginning professionals who can impact students’ learning. They attribute their success in part to various features of their teacher education programs. When asked about their future plans, these graduates responded that ‘they would stay in their schools and in teaching’. In this regard, qualitative data provides an indirect measure of teacher education program effectiveness in relation to retention and career progression. The areas of success identified by graduate teachers in their responses were: assessment and reporting, behaviour management, knowing students and their engagement, flexibility and adaptability, communication and relationships, collaboration, content knowledge, creating a positive learning environment, curriculum development, lesson planning, effecting learning, ICT, literacy, numeracy, student welfare and well-being. However, they identified behaviour management, catering for diversity, communication with parents, taking leadership roles, subject specific pedagogy and second method, team-teaching, and using assessment data as challenges.

Beginning teachers perceive their capabilities, workplace conditions and experiences differently from more experienced teachers. Research demonstrates that the way beginning teachers perceive their general preparedness is affected, partly, by the level they can engage students and make an impact on their learning, rather than by their teacher education degrees. Although teachers’ academic degrees have been a traditional indicator of the qualifications and quality of the teacher workforce, international research has not found that the highest degree attained by teachers is a good predictor of gains in student achievement (Rivkin & Hanushek, 2005). A rather consistent finding, however, is that teachers with better academic performance obtain better student outcomes (Eide, Goldhaber, & Brewer, 2004; Murnane & Steele, 2007).

One graduate teacher’s comment provides a better understanding of how a mismatch in work conditions and graduate teachers’ expectations can contribute to teacher retention (Box 9). Kirsty’s (not her real name) early experiences in a challenging school, as a new teacher, were not only difficult but it was a ‘culture shock’ for her. She cited both the lack of preparation in understanding school realities and the lack of school support and resources in providing systemic, continued and ongoing professional learning to support her in dealing with the magnitude of the realities that new teachers face in challenging teaching circumstances. This has profound implications for induction and mentoring programs that can provide a valuable transition from university to school settings.

Box 9. ‘A bit of a shock’ Kirsty is on a full-time, permanent contract at a school in South Australia. Kirsty describes the community as having high unemployment and low income. The school has 1400 students from ‘birth to Year 12’. She has been there a year and teaches Year 10, 11 and 12 mathematics. She enjoys the work, but acknowledges the challenges. She has a large number of special needs students, especially students with Asperger’s Syndrome. One of Kirsty’s challenges is a lack of resources in the school. While there is a large Apple program, providing students with access to Apple computers, basic resources such as calculators for use in the mathematics classroom are lacking. Her teacher education program did not prepare her for the challenge of creating her own resources: ‘Universities I think assume you’re going to walk into a school, especially in South Australia that have got textbooks and stuff like that. So that was a bit of a shock really, to walk into a school that didn’t have anything.’ Kirsty does not have any immediate career aspirations, but would like eventually to be a mathematics coordinator and a good mentor to new teachers. Overall, she feels that her teacher education course contributed to her resilience, and this helped her to meet the challenge of lack of resources. One of the ways it did this was by helping her see learning as an active, self-directed, ongoing process. She improved her research skills in the course and is now confident about using these where she needs to in her teaching, such as finding appropriate resources. A second way the course contributed to her resilience is that it suggested the need to build collegial networks and helped her to do this, though she feels that there could have been even greater emphasis and facilitation of network building in her teacher education program. Practicums were especially useful and particularly for developing reflective practice and for cultivating utilised management strategies. She does not remember either of these things being directly addressed in the non-practicum parts of the teacher education program. She feels more practicums would be useful. A unit on linguistic diversity and second language teaching was also of practical value. She has consciously utilised some of the tools (e.g., the use of an interpreter) and strategies (e.g., allowing students to discuss things in their own language as well as in English) that she gained from this unit. Kirsty also found concepts from educational psychology valuable, such as the zone of proximal development. These made her think about how to set up her classroom, and how to keep students engaged. However she does not feel that these links between theories and practice were made well by the program, partly because of the delay between this learning and classroom practice, and the lack of opportunity to trial and reflect on them. Kirsty feels that while she managed to develop a good knowledge of mathematics, she was not taught how to teach the subject. The teacher education program gave a small amount of attention to the mathematics curriculum and none to how to apply the curriculum in practice. Another weakness perceived by Kirsty is a lack of cohesion in the program as a whole. Some units were repetitive or re-hashed content already covered. Concepts such as Social Justice and Special Needs were covered frequently between units without reference to each other. Graduate teacher from South Australia, full-time permanent