Internationally, initial teacher education (ITE) has come under increasing criticism for not preparing teachers to work effectively with increasingly diverse student populations. Such criticism has led to controversy about how, when and where teachers should be prepared (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009) and to calls for the review and reform of ITE (Townsend, 2011). Underpinning such calls is the growing evidence base showing that teachers are the most important school-based factor influencing student outcomes (Hattie, 2012). The resulting focus on teacher quality has shifted the emphasis away from inputs or characteristics of teacher preparation programmes (such as programme duration or structure) to attention on outcomes– on what candidates should know and be able to do when they start teaching.  Thus teacher education providers are coming under increasing pressure to provide credible evidence regarding the educational impact of their programmes.

 A focus on evidence and accountability now dominates the policy discourse on ITE. In the USA, for example, there are calls for increased use of evidence to support claims of effectiveness and to guide policy decisions (Ludlow et al., 2010), while in England providers are being are being asked to demonstrate year on year improvement in the value they add to their students (Ellis, 2010). In this environment, there is a strong imperative for the educational research community to take control of the accountability narrative (Shulman, 2007) and to assert their professional jurisdiction (Cochran-Smith, 2004). Responding to external accountability pressures should not be the only driver for the collection of evidence regarding the efficacy of ITE programmes. Fallon (2006) refers to the importance of evidence supporting a greater understanding of the effectiveness of teacher education and what he describes as a “moral imperative to improve it” (p. 144).  As Ludlow et al. (2010) suggest, such evidence can be transformative for teacher education practices. For many teacher educators, an emphasis on internal or professional accountability may be a more compelling argument than a drive to meet external policy expectations.

This paper reports on a multiple institute quantitative research project undertaken by the Teacher Education Forum of Aotearoa New Zealand (TEFANZ), the national voice for NZ teacher education. This project is driven not only by external accountability demands but also by a desire to implement a robust longitudinal research project to inform the on-going enhancement of teacher education in NZ. Building on international knowledge gained through other research (e.g. Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009; Ludlow, et al., 2010),  TEFANZ commissioned the development of a survey tool to measure how well prepared early childhood, primary and seondary graduating student teachers felt at the end of their ITE programmes.  An iterative design and testing process was implemented to ensure the survey was valid and robust, could be transferred across institutions and programmes, and would retain relevancy and significance over time.  The data presented in this paper are drawn from the third iteration of the TEFANZ survey administered at the end of 2012 using Survey Monkey, an online survey tool.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 31 (4), 416-440. Cochran-Smith, M., & The Boston College Evidence Team. (2009). Reculturing teacher education: inquiry, evidence and action. Journal of teacher education , 60 (5), 458-468. Ellis, V. (2010). Impoverishing experience: The problem of teacher education in England. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36, 105-120. Fallon, D. (2006). The buffalo upon the chimneypiece: The value of evidence. Journal of Teacher Education , 57 (2), 139-154. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Defining the outcomes of teacher education: What’s social justice got to do with it? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 193-212. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Ludlow, L., Mitescu, E., Pedulla, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Cannady, M., Enterline, S., et al. (2010). An accountability model for initial teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching , 36 (4), 353-368. Shulman, L. (2007). Counting and recounting: assessment and the quest for accountability. Retrieved July 2011, from Change: http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/January-February%202007/full-counting-recounting.html Townsend, T. (2011). Teacher Education: An international perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(4), 373-375. Woolfok-Hoy, A. (n.d). Teacher self-efficacy. Retrieved from http://people.ehe.ohio-state.edu/ahoy/research/instruments/