Understanding The Political Arena Of Out-Of-Field Teaching In Australia
Author(s):
Linda Hobbs (presenting / submitting) Colleen Vale Christopher Speldewinde Zahra Parvanehnezhadshirazian
Conference:
ECER 2015
Network:
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

23 SES 02 A, Policy Reforms and Teacher Professionalism (Part 1)

Paper Session to be continued in 23 SES 03 A

Time:
2015-09-08
15:15-16:45
Room:
417.Oktatóterem [C]
Chair:
Marie Brennan

Contribution

In Australia and many other countries, secondary teachers undertake studies to prepare and qualify them to teach specialisations for which they have the disciplinary background. However, the reality is that many teachers internationally are expected to teach subjects they are not qualified to teach, that is, to teach out-of-field (Australian Secondary Principals Association (ASPA), 2006; Ingersoll, 1998; Hobbs, 2013). Marginson, Tytler et al (2013) report a 2011 ACER study that found 39% of years 7-10 Australian mathematics classes were taught by out-of-field teachers, with 23% taught by teachers with no tertiary mathematics at all. They emphasize the scale of the issue for Australia more so than comparable countries, and the need for urgent action. International studies highlight the significance of this issue as impacting on teacher well-being (see for example, Ingersoll, 1998; Steyn & du Plessis, 2007) and the quality of educational outcomes; for example, studies have shown that students taught by out-of-field mathematics teachers can perform below students taught by qualified teachers (Attard, 2013; Thomson, Hillman & Wernert. 2012). In addition, performance in international comparison tests in mathematics and science show Australia falling behind other comparable OECD countries; while not directly attributable to out-of-field teaching, the teacher is a critical factor in student learning outcomes and decisions to continue with STEM-related subjects in post compulsory years (Lyons & Quinn, 2010; Tytler et al., 2008).

This project examines policies and perspectives across Australia (both state-based and nationally), concerning out of field teaching of secondary science and mathematics, drawing on government informants, and science and mathematics education associations, principals associations, and education unions.  The project is collecting and analysing documentation of policy and initiatives and insights gathered from key informant interviews from each of these groups.

 

The following research questions are being explored:

RQ1. What are the perspectives of government and stakeholders regarding out-of-field secondary mathematics and science teaching?

RQ2. How do government policies and system level procedures interact to impact on the incidence of out-of-field teachers and the quality of teaching by out-of-field teachers?

RQ3. What state-based or national retraining or professional learning programs exist for out-of-field secondary mathematics and science teachers?

 

This paper will report on data collection relating to three states on the eastern coast of Australia: Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. Analysis for this paper will focus on Question 1, and only the government perspectives.

 

Method

Given the focus on policy critique, this project is informed by critical theory (Giroux, 1983). Giroux argues that dramatic social change can be achieved through “critique”. Critique is focusing on state and national policy, and attends to the relationships between that policy and what is happening on the ground in schools as represented by the various affiliated associations. The intention is to analyse how the practice of assigning out-of-field teachers has been produced, contested, and legitimated in the Australian education arena. The project takes a “what’s the problem represented to be?” approach as advocated by Bacchi (1999). Bacchi calls competing understandings of social issues ‘problem representations’, which are created and shaped as we speak about them and as we propose how to ‘address’ them. This approach enables reconstruction, analysis, and comparison of the different representations of the out-of-field problem according to government, teacher unions, principals, and subject associations. Bacchi’s questions will be asked for each problem representation: 1. What is the problem of out-of-field teaching represented to be? 2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation? 3. What effects are produced? 4. What is left unproblematic? What the silences? How would ‘responses’ differ if the ‘problem’ were thought about or represented differently? 5. How/where are dominant problem representations produced, disseminated and defended? How could they be contested/disrupted? The research design relies on structured interviews and analysis of documents retrieved through the internet and documents elicited through interviews. The structured interviews with key informants are predominantly phone interviews. These interviews elicit perspectives and policy directions, critique, and possibilities for the future. The analysis of documents focus on policy and submissions relating to the issues of teaching out-of-field, teacher retention and attraction, and teacher retraining, and formal retraining programs available for mathematics and science teachers. The analysis presented here draws only on documents from government websites. Developing the Problem representation: Document data analysis involves an initial scan of the documents and highlighting of the aspects that lead to a description of the problem (Bacchi’s question 1, how they represent out-of-field teaching). From this description, the assumptions can be identified (question 2). Questions 3, 4 and 5 become particularly apparent when the descriptions and assumptions of the different participant groups are juxtaposed. Interview transcripts are coded against the 5 questions, and added to the developing problem representation.

Expected Outcomes

There are differences in the ways governments respond to the issues of out-of-field teaching. Such differences arise because of the different emphases in policy documents, often because of contextual factors. For example, introduction of a National Curriculum has resulted in Year 7 in Queensland moving from primary to secondary schools, resulting in the need for retraining of some teachers who will move from the generalist primary setting to the subject specific secondary setting. New South Wales has the only system of assigning graduate teachers ‘Approval to teach’ certain subjects demonstrating some commitment to teacher specialization in NSW. While Queensland and NSW offer retraining options for teachers, Victoria does not. Significant for all three states is the virtual absence of ‘out-of-field teachers’ from their policies. Representations are as follows: NSW: a teacher shortfall, which is addressed through a range of teacher recruitment strategies and retraining initiatives for already qualified teachers; and a problem with teacher quality as shown in their Great Teaching, Inspired Learning policy. Queensland: teacher quality, but also a teaching out-of-context problem, meaning teaching in rural and remote contexts. The focus is on how to teach in these locations and getting teachers and pre-service teachers there rather than who is teaching what. Victoria: a supply and demand issue, and most efforts are put into recruitment of teachers and providing incentives for graduate teachers to take difficult to fill vacancies in metropolitan schools and regional and rural contexts, or hard to staff subjects, such as maths and languages. Further data will be presented on the effects of these representations, the underpinning assumptions, the silences and how they can be contested. Such explication of the positions of governments is useful when comparing the experiences of out-of-field teachers and schools across different states, and even more so when comparing across different countries.

References

Attard, C. (2013), '"If I had to pick any subject, it wouldn't be maths": Foundations for engagement with mathematics during the middle years', Mathematics Education Research Journal, 569 - 587. Australian Secondary Principals Association (1999). Policy – Teachers: Supply and demand in Australian schools. http://www.aspa.asn.au/ Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, Policy and Politics: the construction of policy problems. London: Sage. Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. Westport: Bergin & Garvey. Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching 'out-of-field' as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271-297. Ingersoll, R. M. (1998). The problem of out-of-field teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 773-776. Lyons, T., Cooksey, R., Panizzon, D., Parnell, A., & Pegg, J. (2006). Science, ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia the SiMERR national survey: A research report. Armidale: SiMERR. Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing Science: Understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. Armidale: University of New England Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons. Melbourne: The Australian Council of Learned Academies. www.acola.org.au. Steyn, G. M., & du Plessis, E. (2007). The implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for effective teaching, quality education and school management. Africa Education Review, 4(2), 144-158. Thomson, S., Hillman, K. & Wernet, N. (2012). Monitoring Australian Year 8 student achievement internationally: TIMSS 2011. Camberwell: ACER.

Author Information

Linda Hobbs (presenting / submitting)
Deakin University, Australia
Colleen Vale
Deakin University, Australia
Christopher Speldewinde
Deakin University, Australia
Zahra Parvanehnezhadshirazian
Deakin University, Australia

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.