Across many contexts, knowledge-producing actors privilege standardised indicators, large-scale comparative data, and “evidence-based” approaches frequently grounded in cognitive science, behavioural research, and big data analytics (Brooks, 2021; Hordern, 2023; Mayer & Mills, 2021). The growing dominance of measurable competencies and quantifiable outcomes may marginalise more interpretive, theoretical, and philosophical forms of inquiry (Colgan & Maxwell, 2020; Furlong, 2013). Typically, these forms of knowing attend to meaning, value, and ethical judgement. These tensions are particularly evident in initial teacher education (ITE). Advocates argue that ITE does not merely transmit technical skills, it shapes how future professionals understand knowledge, authority, responsibility, and the purposes of education itself (Winch 2012). Teachers are expected to exercise ethical discernment, engage with plural worldviews, and respond thoughtfully and imaginatively to complex social challenges. Theoretical and philosophical foundations have traditionally supported such capacities by fostering critical reflection, normative reasoning, and attentiveness to the social and political conditions of schooling (Brennan & Canny, 2023). Yet these foundations are increasingly reconfigured if not altogether lost within policy environments oriented toward demonstrable impact and “what works” effectiveness (Biesta, 2007; Biesta, 2011; Biesta, 2022). Across Europe, competency-based frameworks are becoming central to teacher education reform. The Common European Principles for Teacher Competences and Qualifications (European Commission, 2005) and the European Skills Agenda (European Commission, 2020) promote outcomes-oriented models. In the Australian context, the TEEP core content framework and associated media articles explicitly claimed less focus on theory and philosophy of education (Teacher Education Expert Panel, 2023). A marginalisation of normative and philosophical inquiry raises concerns about the long-term intellectual resilience of the teaching profession (Colgan & Maxwell, 2020). The concerns, however, are not merely curricular, but also generational loss. If philosophical engagement becomes progressively marginalised in ITE, future teachers may be less equipped to navigate ethically complex terrains such as, sustainability education, culturally plural classrooms, contested histories, artificial intelligence, and democratic disagreement (Biesta, 2022; Morin, 2001). The generational erosion of philosophical foundations may therefore weaken the profession’s capacity to respond thoughtfully to precisely the crises that policy frameworks seek to address. Yet, despite the potential of philosophical foundations for equipping teachers to address complex societal and educational challenges, there remains a notable gap in empirical understanding of how philosophy of education is actually positioned within contemporary initial teacher education (ITE) (Brennan & Canny, 2023; Winch 2012). While competency-based reforms have increasingly shaped ITE globally, prioritising measurable outcomes and technical skills, little is known about whether, and to what extent, philosophical inquiry is being sustained, marginalised, or reconfigured in response to these pressures. This lack of insight represents a critical blind spot. Without examining the current conceptualisation, presence, and valuation of philosophy of education in ITE, we cannot fully assess the risks of generational loss or the profession’s long-term capacity to engage thoughtfully with emerging crises. This presentation contributes to this international conversation by reporting on the findings from a Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA) funded research project investigating whether and how philosophy of education is conceptualised, present and valued within contemporary ITE.    

This 12 month funded project takes place in Australia and employs a sequential mixed-methods design with a completion date of April 2026. Data collection comprises the following techniques. An ongoing systematic review of peer-reviewed literature establishes how philosophy of education has been defined, justified, and related to educational practice. An initial set of articles with ‘philosophy OR theory of education’ in the title, from Scopus, Web of Science, and google scholar are screened using the criteria of English language, published after 2000, peer-reviewed, and relevance. Backward and forward bibliometric techniques are used to identify further sources. Following the identification of literature defined core aspects of a definition of philosophy of education, a purposive Delphi study engages 15 experts in philosophy of education and teacher education recruited through conferences, associations and social media. These two groups ensure both disciplinary depth needed to interrogate what philosophy of education is and programmatic insight into its enactment within teacher education. Typically, the purpose of a Delphi study is to reach consensus using cyclical analysis and feedback. As such, two to three iterative Qualtrics rounds elicit and refine expert judgements regarding the nature and role of philosophy in ITE, first identifying core aspects and then ratings of these aspects through Likert scales. Follow-up semi-structured interviews probe reasoning and areas of divergence. Drawing on the results from the literature and Delphi study, a survey is developed and distributed again via conferences, professional associations and social media. It gathers demographic data, indicators of curricular presence, perceived institutional value using sliding scales, and qualitative reflections via open questions. Quantitative data are analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics (SPSS v29) and open responses are examined through thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Data were also collected via a desktop review of publicly available course documentation from ITE providers (approx. 41) to triangulate findings by identifying explicit and implicit representations of philosophy of education across initial teacher education programmes (Bachelor and Master’s Levels) and contrasting results with those from the Delphi and Survey data.

This project is anticipated to yield significant empirical, theoretical, and practical outcomes, providing a mapping of philosophy of education within Initial Teacher Education (ITE). By triangulating data from the literature review, expert Delphi study, survey, and desktop review, the study will generate a nuanced evidence base on how philosophy of education is conceptualised, present, and valued in contemporary ITE programmes. Preliminary findings from piloted Delphi questions, initial survey responses, and desktop review already indicate patterns of erosion where philosophy is frequently reduced to fragmented or instrumental integrations within mandated core content, with standalone provision rare and often justified defensively. Full outcomes are expected to confirm these trends while identifying emergent adaptation strategies (e.g., embedding philosophical inquiry within sustainability, ethics or inclusion units). Theoretically, the project will contribute to understandings of epistemic redistribution in teacher education governance. Practically, outcomes will inform ITE providers, accreditation bodies, and policymakers by highlighting risks of generational loss in teachers’ capacity for ethical deliberation amid poly-crises. Recommendations will suggest ways to preserve space for philosophical engagement amid reform. Future research could extend the mapping to include student teacher and novice perspectives, and explore tensions between generic competency frameworks and subject-specific philosophical traditions, issues already emerging in early Delphi responses. In the presentation, we will focus on sharing the empirical findings to discuss their implications for sustaining philosophical foundations in an era of technocratic reform.

Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence‐based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational theory, 57(1), 1-22. Biesta, G. (2011). Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: A comparative analysis of the Anglo-American and Continental construction of the field. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(1), 175–192. Biesta, G. (2022). World-centred education: A view for the present. Routledge. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Brennan, A., & Canny, A. (2023). Problematising Irish student-teachers’(dis) engagement with sociology of education in initial teacher education programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 130, 104173. Brooks, C. (2021). Initial teacher education at scale: Quality conundrums. Routledge. Colgan, A. D., & Maxwell, B. (Eds.). (2020). The importance of philosophy in teacher education: Mapping the decline and its consequences. Routledge. European Commission. (2005). Common European principles for teacher competences and qualifications. https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/common-european-principles-teacher-competences-and-qualifications European Commission. (2020). European skills agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies-and-activities/skills-and-qualifications/european-skills-agenda_en Furlong, J. (2013). Education – An anatomy of the discipline: Rescuing the university project? Routledge. Hordern, J. (2023). Educational studies and educational practice: A necessary engagement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 71(6), 567–583. Mayer, D., & Mills, M. (2021). Professionalism and teacher education in Australia and England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 45–61. Morin, E. (2001). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. UNESCO. Winch, C. (2012). For philosophy of education in teacher education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 305–322. Teacher Education Expert Panel. (2023). Strong beginnings: Report of the Teacher Education Expert Panel. Department of Education, Australian Government. https://www.education.gov.au/quality-initial-teacher-education-review/resources/strong-beginnings-report-teacher-education-expert-panel