Alan Tudge’s ITE Report is Out

Alan Tudge’s Review of Initial Teacher Education is out. (Thanks, Terry.) The Report and Summary can be downloaded here, and a Jordan Baker article on the leak (i.e. drop) of the Report is here. Our comments on the launching of the Review are here.

We haven’t had a chance to look yet, even at Baker’s article.

25 Replies to “Alan Tudge’s ITE Report is Out”

  1. \displaystyle Another Govt report whose recommendations are: totally unsurprising, consistent with all the recommendations of all the previous reports, and will be ignored (as they always have been).

    Except for the costs-nothing window-dressing recommendations to give teaching the \displaystyle appearance of being attractive. Let’s fool people into teaching by giving teachers “more national honours to increase their status” and appoint a “patron of education … to advocate for them”*. Dressing mutton up as lamb. Anyone fooled into entering teaching by such simple parlour tricks is a total idiot, which will hardly raise standards.

    The Report recommends a substantial pay increase, of the order of 30%. Dan and Meredith negotiated a 2022 EBA (yet to be ratified, and hopefully it won’t be) that includes “a 1 per cent pay rise every six months up to and including July 1, 2025, with the first pay rise backdated to January 1 this year.” 1 apting percent every 6 months … Let’s get the Further financial mathematics into action and make the comparison …

    However … the Report \displaystyle does recommend that
    “postgraduate qualification be reduced to one year [(what a apting surprise!!)] and short courses be made available so students could explore teaching without committing to a full degree.”
    so maybe \displaystyle some good might come out of it. And it looks like the idiot education ‘experts’ at Universities would be held to greater account. So maybe their gravy train will reach the end of the line. Although I’m sure they’ll quickly stick their snouts into the “short courses” trough. Level 1 Certificate of Bullshit, anyone …?

    A pity the report didn’t recommend getting rid of the Vampiric Institute of Teaching (in its current form), a parasitic entity which I would argue has created a huge disincentive to become a teacher.

    The head of the NSW Teachers Federation, Angelo Gavrielatos, says it best:
    “The findings of the national review support NSW government research that salaries and workload were putting people off choosing teachers. Blinding people to the realities of teaching through PR campaigns is not the answer to growing shortages … That can only be achieved by tackling the real problem: workloads are too high and salaries are too low.”

    * I thought the (spineless, gutless) Victorian Branch of the AEU was meant to advocate for teachers in Victoria.

      1. No it doesn’t … In the fourth paragraph I said “maybe \displaystyle some good might come out of it.”

        The first paragraph states the facts, both historical and self-evident. The fourth paragraph expresses hope. Although I’ll concede that fact and hope usually end up being contradictory (at least when it comes to education).

        The fourth paragraph is actually consistent with the second paragraph, given that it’s also a cost-nothing (for the Govt) recommendation. Obviously I think the reduction to 1 year is a very good thing and will probably attract more people to teaching. But the introduction of short courses will probably be a bad thing (it will probably ensure that the 1 year recommendation is a cost-nothing recommendation for the Universities as well, and justify the continued existence of the education ‘experts’ as well as spawning new ones).

        My overall opinion is that the recommendations that cost nothing will probably be adopted. But the recommendations that will make a significant difference – and hence cost money – definitely will not. History’s on my side. Apart from, at best, correcting a moronic decision from the recent past (the 2 year Monstrosity of Education), nothing will significantly change.

        PS – Thanks Terry for alerting us to this news.

        1. You think a Government report recommending reducing ITE from two years to one year is unsurprising and consistent with previous reports?

          1. Well …. It depends on how you look at it.

            1) It’s unsurprising to me that the latest report recommends changing the moronic decision of the previous report. The choices were either the sensible return to 1 year, keep the 2 years (never gonna happen, see 2) below) or an increase to 3 years.

            And it wouldn’t have surprised me if the report recommended 3 years: Get rid of the 2 year Monstrosity of Education as a post-graduate degree and make wannabe teachers do the 3 year Bachelor of Education (after testing the waters with a short course that would count towards the B.Ed.) Then after teaching standards haven’t improved, the next report can recommend a single 1 year short course, perhaps called a Dip. Ed., to be done after any Bachelor degree.

            2) And it’s consistent inasmuch as all these reports consistently recommend changes in the amount of ITE training.

            The circle of life (in the world of education).

            Regarding the amount of ITE – \displaystyle my recommendation would have been a 1 year Certificate of Education followed by a PAID 1 year ‘apprenticeship’ at a school that, if successfully completed, converted into a PERMANENT teaching position and a qualification upgrade from Cert. Ed. to Diploma of Education.
            (With appropriate safe-guards to prevent schools from screwing over the ‘apprentice’, and with appropriate salaries).

            I would also have recommended the abolition of the VIT in its current parasitic form, but that would probably require a brand new ‘expert’ panel and report.

            1. Maybe it’s in the final report that Jordan had access to, but not in the summaries … Strange but possible…

              Or maybe Jordan has screwed up or misunderstood something …

              So the one recommendation that was good and had a chance of being implemented is possibly non-existent … I should have figured. Stooged again.

            2. From the main report, page 33:

              Recommendation 5: Better recognise prior learning of high-quality, mid-career changers

              The prior learning of well-qualified, suitable, mid-career changers with skills in areas of high demand should be better recognised, with the goal of reducing to one year the time taken to complete a secondary teaching qualification.

              Consider amending the Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia: Standards and Procedures to reinstate the Graduate Diploma for highly qualified candidates.

                1. Strong words indeed; very powerful. There’s nothing like a firm, unequivocal commitment on which to base a recommendation.

                  However, the increasing support for TFA has me concerned, as has the report’s quoting from TFA’s submission as if it were some unquestionable gospel. But I suppose that, considering the highly politicised nature of this review – and of education in general – sophisticated smoke and mirrors, emotionally packaged around educational equity and a strong saviour mentality, is a powerful weapon deployed against the uncritical and weak-minded. Jedi mind-tricks indeed. School principals and government ministers take note: “These are not the droids you’re looking for… move along”.

                  The entire report distills down to: Much ado about nothing.

              1. Aha. Thanks Sir H.

                So the Monstrosity of Education remains for students but they recommend the reinstatement of the 1 year Dip. Ed. to attract “well-qualified, suitable, mid-career changers with skills in areas of high demand”.

                I should have realised they would never get rid of the Monstrosity of Education.

              2. I imagine that many universities already have schemes for recognising prior learning to shorten the length of study required.

                1. Only in your imagination, Terry.

                  I can tell you for a cold hard fact that prior learning is NOT recognised.

                  The only schemes universities have are how to save money and how to make money. Every university is a business, any learning that occurs is purely a by-product.

    1. I put this question to the careers advisor at my school; she estimated that about 20% of students would be thinking about becoming teachers, and a similar proportion go on to university studies with this in mind.

        1. I was surprised that 20% of students consider being a teacher. Still, they have not seen many other professions up close.

          I suspect that many students change their minds about what they might do during their high school years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here