Across the globe, education systems are grappling with a persistent and escalating challenge: the shortage of qualified teachers. This crisis is not confined to one region or subject area; it is systemic and far-reaching. Mathematics, however, stands out as a critical pressure point. In Australia, for example, estimates suggest that up to 40% of mathematics teachers are teaching out-of-field (OOF), that is, teaching beyond their formal qualifications. Similar patterns are evident across Europe and internationally (Hobbs & Porsch, 2021), where shortages in STEM subjects have prompted schools to adopt emergency staffing measures. These practices, while necessary in the short term, raise profound questions about educational quality, teacher identity, and the sustainability of workforce strategies.

This study focuses on the phenomenon of OOF teaching in mathematics and the systemic conditions that shape professional education (PE) for teachers. Rather than framing OOF teaching as an individual deficit, the research positions it as a structural issue embedded within policy, organisational practices, and cultural norms. The central question guiding this inquiry is: How do policy contexts and organisational practices influence representations of, and support for, teachers currently teaching mathematics out-of-field? The objective is to map the ecological conditions that sustain OOF teaching and to identify how PE currently supports or thwarts teachers' efforts to transition to in-field.

Two theoretical frameworks underpin this investigation. First, Professional Capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012) provides a lens for examining teacher development through human, social, and decisional capital. This perspective highlights how teachers’ engagement with PE is shaped not only by individual knowledge and skills but also by collaborative networks and organisational decision-making. Second, Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) Ecological Systems Theory offers a multi-level approach to understanding the systemic influences on OOF teaching. By analysing interactions across the macrosystem (policy and cultural norms), exosystem (institutional structures), and mesosystem (school-level practices), the study foregrounds the complexity of conditions that enable or constrain OOF teachers' uptake of PE.

Although the empirical focus is on Australia, the phenomenon of OOF teaching is global. Teacher shortages are documented across Europe, with a similar reliance on flexible workforce strategies and policy discourses that emphasise teacher mobility and lifelong learning (Viac & Fraser, 2020). By situating the Australian case within these international trends, the study contributes to global debates on workforce adaptability and professional learning. It interrogates how cultural norms and structural arrangements, such as credentialing systems, funding models, and data collection practices, shape responses to OOF teaching across jurisdictions. Ultimately, this research seeks to move beyond short-term solutions and deficit framings. By mapping the educational ecology that sustains OOF teaching, it aims to inform policy and practice in ways that value teacher specialisation and support requalification pathways.

This study forms part of a broader project, Shifting the Culture of Out-of-field Professional Education for Teachers (SCOPE-T), and draws on a review of literature and policy documents relating to professional education (PE) for out-of-field (OOF) teachers. The review sought to establish a comprehensive picture of current PE offerings and representations before examining how these conditions might be adapted to better support pathways into in-field practice. Members of the research team collected and analysed a wide range of documents from professional associations (10 documents), teacher registration bodies across eight jurisdictions (25 documents), government departments and agencies (54 documents), unions (6 documents), and additional organisations (10 documents). A specialised subset of these documents relating to mathematics education forms the basis of the analysis reported in this paper. Document analysis was conducted collaboratively, with each researcher examining material aligned with their professional expertise. The analysis focused on explicit or implicit references to OOF teaching, including indirect indications such as references to new, returning, or retraining teachers. While some documents made no mention of OOF teaching, others contained substantial material that could be coded and categorised using Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological systems theory. After initial coding, researchers with expertise in mathematics teacher education met to refine interpretations, compare emerging themes, and verify analytical reliability. This process also drew upon the team’s professional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012), which shaped the ecological mapping and strengthened interpretative validity. The analytical process combined Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological systems theory with the notion of professional capital. Professional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012) served as the interpretative lens for early discussion, enabling the team to draw on their human, social, and decisional capital when identifying themes and determining their significance. These themes were then located within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework, producing maps illustrating the systemic conditions sustaining OOF teaching and potential pathways by which teachers may move towards in-field status. Across the wider project, three recurring domains emerged as central to these pathways: workplace support, initial teacher education and retraining, and professional education opportunities. To enrich the document analysis, the study also incorporates insights from semi-structured interviews with participants across four Australian states, representing a diverse range of policy and PE stakeholders. For the mathematics-focused analysis reported here, transcripts from ten participants connected to mathematics education were examined. Their perspectives provide experiential depth to the findings, illustrating how policies, organisational practices, and PE offerings are understood and enacted within the field.

This study demonstrates that out-of-field (OOF) teaching in mathematics is sustained by the interaction of influences across Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems. The three pathways to becoming in-field identified in the study, initial teacher education (ITE), professional education (PE), and workplace learning, do not function independently. Instead, they intersect in ways that can either support or hinder teachers’ development. The ecological mapping highlights how assumptions about mathematical competence, simplistic “content met/not met” classifications, and fragmented program structures limit opportunities for meaningful disciplinary and pedagogical growth. Participants emphasised that strong mathematical foundations are essential for later pedagogical development, underscoring the need for PE and ITE programs that integrate content knowledge with pedagogy. A key finding is the foundational yet undervalued role of ITE. Weak recruitment pipelines, variable program structures, and restrictive accreditation processes shape teachers’ confidence and professional identity well before they enter the classroom. These upstream conditions influence how schools perceive new teachers’ capabilities and contribute to patterns of OOF placement. At the macrosystem level, enduring narratives, such as the belief that “anyone can teach mathematics”, normalise the deployment of beginning teachers into OOF roles, reinforcing systemic patterns that undervalue disciplinary expertise. The analysis also shows that partnerships are essential. Stakeholders consistently identified the need for coordinated action between universities, schools, policymakers, and professional learning providers. However, current efforts remain fragmented, limiting the systems’ capacity to offer coherent pathways into in-field practice. Overall, the findings indicate that coherent action across ecological levels is necessary to create the conditions that support teachers to become in-field.

Australian Government Department of Education (DoE). (2022). The national teacher workforce action plan December 2022. https://www.education.gov.au/national-teacher-workforce-action-plan Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2020). Guidelines for the accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/accreditation_guidelines_2021_17-feb-2021_contents_web_final.pdf?sfvrsn=9276dd3c_0 Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2021). Australian teacher workforce data: National teacher workforce characteristics report. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/australian-teacher-workforce-data/atwdreports Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2022). Australian professional standards for teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards Barker, M., Goos, M., & Coupland, M. (2024). Relieving out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary mathematics: Analysis of out-of-field secondary mathematics teacher upskilling initiatives in Australia. Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute (AMSI). Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Elsevier. Goos, M. & Marchant, T. (2025). Relieving out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary mathematics: Upskilling program design elements. Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute (AMSI). Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College, Columbia University. Hobbs, L., & Porsch, R. (2021). Teaching out-of-field: challenges for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 601–610. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2021.1985280 Hobbs, L., Ross, E., Cirkony, C., McCandless, T., Caldis, S., Dutton, J., Goos, M., Oates, G., Shelley, K., Delaney, S., & Speldewinde, C. (2025). Australia’s professional education ecosystem for out-of-field teachers: Seeking diverse pathways for teacher learning. Professional Development in Education (submitted December 2025) Oates, G., Muir, T., Murphy, C., Reaburn, R., & Maher, N. (2021). What influences mathematics teacher educators’ decisions in course design: Activity theory and professional capital as an investigative approach. In M. Goos & K. Beswick (eds.). The learning and development of mathematics teacher educators (pp. 345–366). Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-62408-8_18 Ross, E., Goos, M., Oates, G., Hobbs, L., Speldewinde, C., Cirkony, C., Delaney, S., Dutton, J. & Caldis, S. (2025). “Anyone Can Teach Maths”: Workplace Perspectives on Out-of-Field Teaching of Mathematics. In S. M. Patahuddin, L. Gaunt, D. Harris & K. Tripet (Eds.), Unlocking minds in mathematics education. Proceedings of the 47th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 389–396). Canberra: MERGA. http://merga.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MERGA47_2025_Ross2_RR.pdf Viac, C. & Fraser, P. (2020). Teachers’ well-being: A framework for data collection and analysis. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 213. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/c36fc9d3-en Weldon, P. R. (2016). Out-of-field Teaching in Australian Secondary Schools. Policy Insights (vol. 6). Melbourne: ACER. https://research.acer.edu.au/policyinsights/6/