Early career teachers face significant challenges as they transition from pre-service to in-service teaching (Johnson et al. 2014). Many experience ‘practice shock’ (Kelchtermans. 2019, p. 89), involving high levels of stress and burnout. Across education systems worldwide, induction programs are recognised as vital for supporting early career teachers through this ‘critical phase’ (Kearney, 2014, p. 5). Induction supports early career teacher resilience, effectiveness and retention (Mansfield & Gu, 2019), which is particularly important when considering how high levels of early career teacher attrition are contributing to the current context of widespread teacher shortages (Sullivan et al., 2019).

In countries such as Australia, national induction guidelines aim to provide consistent induction support to early career teachers within a federated education system. The Guidelines for the Induction of Early Career Teachers into the Profession (AITSL, 2023) can be used to ‘underpin the development of programs and practices to support early career teachers’ (p. 4). They focus on the retention of early career teachers, with a strong focus on wellbeing (Rowe et al., 2025). The guidelines outline a range of different supports, such as workplace and community orientation, professional practices, and relationships, which are intended to increase early career teacher retention due to the growing challenge of global teacher shortages (AITSL, 2023).

However, these guidelines are interpreted differently across states and territories, as jurisdictions develop their own policies in response to local priorities and workforce challenges. Policy is often reshaped as it moves between national and local systems (Ball et al., 2012), through a process of recontextualisation during which, as Bowe et al. (2017) note, policies are removed from their original context and reassembled within new settings where they are influenced by local priorities. As a result, national policy designed to support early career teachers can produce diverse ideas of what induction support should entail, who is eligible to receive it, and ultimately, which early career teachers are included or excluded.

Using critical policy analysis, we consider the effectiveness of local policy documents by drawing on the Conceptual Framework for Early Career Teacher Induction (Sullivan et al., 2025, under review). This framework, informed by a critical human resource development perspective, has reconceptualised the structure of teacher induction by identifying three key elements: induction, onboarding, and professional learning. In contrast to current approaches, this framework provides a critical view on what kind of support should be offered and what inequalities currently exist around induction.

Previous research has shown that the national guidelines assume stable, continuous employment in a single school, benefitting teachers with secure positions while marginalising those employed casually or on short-term contracts (Rowe et al., 2025). For teachers employed insecurely, induction is largely reduced to onboarding, with limited access to ongoing socialisation or professional learning. In our study, we use the conceptual framework to critically examine how policies adhere to or depart from the three key elements of induction and how this affects which early career teachers are supported.

Therefore, this study investigates how early career teacher induction is conceptualised within state-level education policy in four Australian states and territories: New South Wales, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Victoria. We critically examine how national induction policy is recontextualised across different levels of governance, and in doing so, we show how induction policy can change within a devolved education system, with relevance for other countries which organise induction policy across federal and state levels.

The research is guided by the following questions:

1. In what ways do local policy documents define the induction of early career teachers?
2. How are national induction policy guidelines recontextualised within these local policy documents?

This study used a critical policy analysis approach to examine how national early career teacher induction policy is recontextualised across Australian states and territories. Critical policy analysis enabled us to interrogate not only what is stated in policy, but also what is left unsaid and how policy may ‘institutionalise inequality’ (Young & Diem, 2017, p. 4). First, we undertook internet research to identify policy documents and guidelines from state and territory education departments related to early career teachers and/or induction. We focused on four jurisdictions: New South Wales (NSW), Northern Territory (NT), South Australia (SA), and Victoria (VIC), selected for their diverse geographical and demographic contexts and the accessibility of relevant documents. We identified 26 documents, including enterprise agreements, early career teacher induction guidelines and guidelines for mentors and school leaders. Documents were read in full and analysed to examine how early career teachers were defined and supported, including terminology, eligibility, and variations in access based on employment arrangements. Drawing on ideas of policy recontextualisation, we examined how the national induction policy (AITSL, 2023) is reshaped within local systems. The analysis of the national policy guidelines was conducted as part of a separate study (Rowe et al., 2025), and the findings from that work are drawn on here to examine how local documents recontextualise those national ideas. As Orchard (2021) argues, policy meanings may become ‘stuck’ or altered as policy flows between national and local systems, so this helped us to see how policy meaning can change as it moves from the national to the state level. To consider the implications of these recontextualisations, we then used the Conceptual Framework for Early Career Teacher Induction (Sullivan et al., 2025, under review), as a critical lens to examine how key elements of induction are defined across jurisdictions, as well as what this reveals about which early career teachers are supported and which may be excluded. By combining the Sullivan et al., (2025) framework with ideas around recontextualisation, we were able to trace how national policy intentions are interpreted in local contexts and identify which early career teachers are supported through policy, and which may be excluded.

We started by examining how policies defined eligibility for induction. While federal guidelines stipulate that induction should occur for the ‘first two years’ (p. 4), with acknowledgement that some may identify beyond this period, state policies vary considerably. Timeframes range from from 1-2 years, inconsistent both within and between states. States also use varying language, such as ‘graduate teacher’ in VIC and NT and ‘beginning teacher’ in NSW. These shifts in terminology and timeframes reflect processes of recontextualisation, which may include deficit views of teachers. Nationally, onboarding is framed as situating teachers within their new environment and adhering to workplace policies. State policies recontextualise this into an administrative process focused on compliance, with limited support beyond initial orientation or the individual school. This approach is unlikely to support teacher retention, especially for those employed casually or on short-term contracts, who may work across multiple schools and therefore may not receive consistent onboarding. For socialisation, national guidelines emphasise connection, with mentoring positioned as one of several supports. The states, however, recontextualise it to involve mentoring specifically. In contrast, the NT reframes socialisation to be the central purpose of induction, showing how priorities can vary by location. Without attention paid to culture and connection (despite in the NT), teachers may struggle to feel included, especially casual ones who likely cannot access a consistent mentor. For professional learning, national guidelines frame this as supporting teachers’ growth. State policies recontextualise this as a pathway to full accreditation, reflecting their responsibility for teacher registration. This limits access to meaningful professional learning which like affects retention. Overall, the recontextualisation of induction across jurisdictions demonstrates how the national guidelines are adapted to state priorities, while insecurely employed teachers remain at a disadvantage. This undermines early career teacher development and retention at a time of ongoing teacher shortages.

AITSL. (2023). Guidelines for the induction of early career teachers in Australia. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. Bowe, Richard & Ball, Stephen & Gold, Anne. (2017). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. 10.4324/9781315412122. Johnson, Bruce, Barry Down, Rosie Le Cornu, Judy Peters, Anna Sullivan, Jane Pearce, and Janet Hunter. 2014. “Promoting Early Career Teacher Resilience: A Framework for Understanding and Acting.” Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice 20 (5): 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.937957 . Kearney, S. (2014). Understanding beginning teacher induction: A contextualized examination of best practice. Cogent education, 1(1), 967477. Kelchtermans, Geert. 2019. “Early Career Teachers and Their Need for Support: Thinking Again.” In Attracting and Keeping the Best Teachers: Issues and Opportunities, edited by Anna Sullivan, Bruce Johnson, and Michele Simons, 83–98. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 981-13-8621-3_5 . Mansfield, C., & Gu, Q. (2019). “I’m finally getting that help that I needed”: Early career teacher induction and professional learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46(4), 639-659. Rowe, E., Sullivan, A., Tippett, N., Simons, M., Grist, E., Reupert, A., Woodcock, S., & White, S. (2025). Precariously employed early career teachers and induction policies: a critical policy study. Journal of Education Policy, 41(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2025.2580975 Sullivan, A., Grist, E., Simons, M., Tippett, N., Woodcock, S., White, S., Zheng, C & Reupert, A. (2025; under review). Induction and the Early Career Substitute Teacher Workforce: Problems, Confusion, and Possible Solutions. Teachers and Teaching. Sullivan, A., Johnson, B., & Simons, M. (2019). Attracting and Keeping the Best Teachers: Issues and Opportunities (B. Johnson, A. Sullivan, & M. Simons, Eds.; 1st ed. 2019., Vol. 16). Springer. Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (2017). Doing critical policy analysis in education research: An emerging paradigm. In Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 79-98). Cham: Springer International Publishing.