Employers’ perspectives of how well prepared early childhood teacher graduates are to work in early childhood education and care services

Abstract

With an unprecedented number of children in early childhood education and care in Australia, demand for early childhood teachers is increasing. This demand is in the context of recognition of the importance of the early years and increasing requirements for more highly qualified early childhood teachers under the National Quality Framework. Increasingly, evidence shows the value-added difference of university-qualified teachers to child outcomes. Within Australia there are multiple ways to become an early childhood teacher. Three common approaches are a 4-year teaching degree to teach children aged birth to 5 years, children aged birth to 8 years, or children aged birth to 12 years. There is, however, no evidence of how effective these degree programmes are. This paper presents the perspectives of 19 employers of early childhood teachers in New South Wales regarding how well prepared early childhood teacher graduates are to work in the early childhood sector in Australia. Although participants noted the strengths of new graduate early childhood teachers, they also identified several areas in which they were less well prepared to teach in the early years.

Keywords

Early childhood workforce early childhood teachers quality early childhood education and care

Introduction

A strong body of research attests to the importance of quality early learning environments for children’s optimal development and wellbeing (O’Connell et al., 2016; Taggart et al., 2015) and early childhood teachers (ECTs) are one of the strongest predictors of quality that impact favourably on children’s educational outcomes (Manning et al., 2019). In Australia, this nexus between quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) and ECTs has been recognised in numerous national and state/territory policy initiatives. These initiatives include increased ECT staffing requirements (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), 2018) and strategies to increase the supply of ECTs (New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education, 2018; Queensland Department of Education and Training, 2016; Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, 2012).

Despite the importance of these strategies, less attention has been paid to examining the quality of early childhood initial teacher education (ITE) programmes as a contributor to teacher efficacy (Couse & Recchia, 2016). A recent review of research that has investigated early childhood ITE programmes concluded ‘not a lot is known about what takes place in early childhood preservice teacher education programs’ (Ryan & Gibson, 2016, p. 195) and ‘very little is known about the impacts of preservice teacher education programs on prospective teacher learning and their practices once they enter the field as professionals’ (p. 202). Similarly, Whitebook and Ryan (2011) argued that ‘too much attention has been given to debating the baseline of qualifications required of preschool teachers…failing to take into account the precise nature of the education that teachers have received en route to their degrees’ (p. 1).

This paper draws from a larger programme of research that is aiming to address this gap by investigating the perceptions of (a) ECT graduates, (b) academic coordinators of EC ITE programmes and (c) employers of ECTs, regarding how well prepared they consider ECT graduates are to teach in the early childhood sector in Australia. In the absence of an evidence-base to show how different teacher preparation programmes impact on graduate quality (Hyson & Cox-Mitchell, 2016), we consider that understanding the perspectives of these three stakeholder groups will provide a marker of programme quality and point to policy and practice gaps requiring attention. Our focus in this paper is on the perceptions of employers from a range of early childhood organisations in NSW and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Employer perspectives provide an interesting case given the diversity of ECEC providers regarding size and profit status in Australia (ACECQA, 2019).

The paper begins with an overview of ITE programmes for ECTs in NSW and ACT, Australia, contextualising this landscape with a focus on how regulatory pressures are influencing this provisioning. We then outline the theoretical framework and methods utilised to undertake this research, before presenting key findings and discussing implications for policy and practice.

Early childhood ITE programmes in Australia

Across Australia today there is great variability in ECT preparation programmes. At the undergraduate level, 4-year programmes target birth to 5, birth to 8, or birth to 12 years, thus enabling graduates to teach in either early childhood settings and/or in primary schools. There are also 1- and 2-year postgraduate ECT programmes such as Graduate Diplomas in Education (Early Childhood) for birth to 5 years; and Master of Teaching courses with a birth to 5, birth to 8, or birth to 12 years focus.

Irrespective of focus, all early childhood ITE programmes in Australia are required to be accredited and approved by ACECQA. Data pertaining to programmes accredited since ACECQA’s inception in 2012 to June 2017 (n = 98) were analysed by jurisdiction (Fenech, 2017) and presented in Figure 1. There are variable approaches to EC ITE in Australia. Notably, although Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia predominantly offer birth to 8 years programmes, other jurisdictions (NSW, ACT and Victoria) have moved to offer predominantly birth to 5 and birth to 12 years programmes, with the latter being the only programmes available in the Northern Territory.

Within these undergraduate programmes are requirements for early childhood education content specific to birth to 5 years. For example, some birth to 12 programmes have only seven of the 32 (22%) units of study devoted to ECEC (Boyd & Newman, 2019), whereas others embed early childhood education content throughout the entire programme. Implications of this variable provisioning and programme coverage of such a broad age range on how well prepared graduates are to teach in the early childhood sector has yet to be investigated. Scholars have flagged concerns for many years over whether programmes offer the requisite depth of knowledge and experiences relevant to the early years; whether academic staff teaching on such programmes have the necessary ECE expertise and experience; and whether tertiary institutions have the capacity to ensure these programmes reflect current research of the early childhood sector (Early & Winton, 2001; Rowley et al., 2011; Whitebook & Ryan, 2011). Moreover, the choice of career pathway that these diverse teacher education programmes provide is impacted by contextual factors that are steering many graduates into the school system (Boyd & Newman, 2019; Gibson et al., 2017). These factors concern lower status, lower pay and poorer working conditions and regulatory accountabilities than those experienced by teachers in schools.

The context in which initial ECT education programmes are developed has become increasingly complex (Gibson et al., 2018), with external regulatory bodies that include ACECQA and the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), the accrediting body for Primary school ITE courses. Requirements from the two national regulatory bodies do not necessarily align (Gibson et al., 2017), thus complicating teacher education programmes that straddle the early childhood and school contexts. Accreditation of ECEC services and higher education programmes can impact preparedness of ECT graduates. In the United States Hyson and Cox-Mitchell (2016), indicate that systems of accreditation can:

Make a positive difference in what future early childhood educators learn, how they are judged ready to practice, and how they function when they take up their professional roles…the flip side is that if accreditation and licensure are poorly aligned with what future early childhood professionals should know and be able to do, or if the systems are ineffectively implemented, their effects will be at best negligible and at worst pernicious (p. 69).

The move in Australia to introduce a nationally consistent system of teacher registration for teachers employed in both school and early childhood sectors (AITSL, 2018) represents another significant policy influence on the preparation of ECTs. Although intended to support and sustain teacher quality once teachers are employed, it is likely that a new system of teacher registration, with revised professional teaching standards, will impact on ITE programmes. Nuttall (2018), for example, has argued that ‘as registration slowly but surely becomes a universal requirement on ECTs in Australia, scrutiny of their pre-service qualifications will only increase’ (p. 162). This warning seems likely to eventuate, with Recommendation 8 of AITLS’s (2018) report proposing that ‘strategies to strengthen relationships between pre-service teachers and teacher regulatory authorities early in ITE programmes be developed and implemented, with a focus on the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and registration requirements’ (p. v).

Theoretical framework and methods

The purpose of this study was to investigate employer perspectives of the preparedness of ECT graduates to teach in the early childhood sector. The study is a qualitative interpretive investigation with human understanding of a social phenomenon at its centre (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017). The theoretical approach guiding this research was that employers’ unique perspectives of the preparedness of ECTs are shaped by their experiences in the field with their leadership roles. Employers were viewed as having the necessary experience and expertise to evaluate their employment decisions, especially employees’ strengths and areas for improvement. The employers were viewed as having responsibility for the quality of ECEC in their organisation through their employment decisions.

Participants

Employers were purposefully selected (Patton, 2015) to develop understandings of their perspectives about university graduates’ preparedness for the workforce. Representatives from 19 employers of ECTs agreed to participate in a semi-structured individual interview. All participants had leadership roles in recruitment. Participants included early childhood centre owners, directors, school principals, chief executive officers and senior management staff in early childhood organisations of variable size. There were representatives from six large organisations (greater than 50 centres), four medium-sized organisations (10–49 centres) and nine small organisations (fewer than 10 centres). In total, participants represented 1168 centres and 1645 teachers across NSW and ACT, Australia.

Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from Southern Cross University, Ethics Committee (approval number ECN-18-134). Prior to commencement of the interviews, participants were provided with a detailed information sheet, the interview questions and they signed a consent form. Interviews were audio recorded with permission from participants and later transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy of data and assist with data analysis. Coding of the data was undertaken to protect the anonymity of participants.

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each interviewer following leads from the interviewee to probe further where necessary (Berg, 2004). The interviewers were academics teaching in early childhood degrees across six universities in NSW, Australia. Interviews lasted between 20 and 55 minutes. In total, 11 interviews were face-to-face, six were phone interviews and two interviews were conducted via an online communication platform. Specific guiding questions included:

On a scale of 1–10 how well prepared do you think EC teachers are? Can you explain your response?

In what ways/areas do you think teacher education programmes prepare ECT graduates well?

In what areas do you think teacher education programmes do not prepare ECT graduates well?

In NSW there are university teacher programmes for ECTs from birth to 5 years, birth to 8 years and birth to 12 years. Do you see any difference in the graduates from these courses?

Data analysis

Data analysis was iterative across four stages, following standard practices of qualitative analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017). During the initial stage, five interviews were hand-coded (from a small, medium and large employer) by one of the researchers. Analysis involved segmenting, that is, extended phrases and sentences representative of participants’ responses were inductively coded. These initial inductive codes were entered into a table with three columns: one for the code, a second for the corresponding quote(s) from the interview, and the third for comments. This initial analysis was shared with the research team. The codes were discussed by the team and modified until consensus was achieved across the seven researchers (Patton, 2015). These codes became the master codes used in the second stage of data analysis.

In the second stage of analysis, the remaining interview data were then coded by the other six researchers using a template with pre-populated master codes and space for entering corresponding quotes and comments. Where necessary, new codes were added to reflect new information. All existing master codes were used across the data and only 15 new codes added, thus indicating that the original master coding was relevant across all interviews. The analyses from this second stage resulted in 104 codes. Some codes had multiple example quotes (range from 1–19; average three quotes per code), other codes had only one quote (n = 40).

Third, the analyses from all six researchers were combined under the existing master codes and new codes. One researcher then read all the data under each master code. There was strong alignment between the data and the assigned master code, as defined by the research team. No data were reassigned, thus indicating strong inter-rater reliability. Next, new codes were collapsed where there was duplication or strong similarity. This resulted in a final set of 96 individual codes.

During the final stage of analysis, the codes were grouped into inductive categories or ‘key themes’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017) agreed to by consensus across the researchers. These key themes are presented below. In referring to and quantifying the data we follow Bloomberg and Volpe (2008), that is ‘all’ means the finding was evident for 100% (n = 19) of participants. And correspondingly, ‘overwhelming majority’ means 76–99% (n = 15–18); ‘a majority’ means 50–75% (n = 10–14); ‘several’ means 30–49% (n = 6–9); and ‘a few’ means less than 30% (n ≤ 6). The representative quotes are labelled according to the size of the organisation (Small = S; Medium = M; Large = L) from which the informant came, and whether it was a not-for-profit (NFP) or for-profit (FP) organisation. For example, a quote from a participant in a small NFP organisation would be labelled SNFP.

Findings

Six key findings emerged from the data analysis:

Participants’ ratings on how well prepared ECT graduates are for working in the ECEC sector

Areas where ECTs are well prepared for teaching

Areas where ECTs are less well prepared

Preference in undergraduate degree focus

Employment, induction and support of new graduates

Connection between university, regulatory bodies and ‘the field’

Participants’ ratings on how well prepared ECT graduates are for working in the ECE sector

Participants’ ratings of how well prepared ECT graduates are for working in the ECEC sector ranged from 3.5–9 and averaged 6 (on a scale of 1–10 where 1 = not at all prepared, to 10 = very well prepared). However, not all participants felt able to make a rating, largely because they could see differences across new graduates based on the graduates’ pathway, age and experience. Further, they commented that graduates may be prepared in one area but less well prepared in others.

In particular, several (n = 8) participants were of the opinion that those ECTs who had articulated through the system, from Cert III or diploma to degree, were more prepared for their role as teacher than those who had gone straight through the early childhood system from school. These eight participants considered the graduates who came straight from school often had little understanding of the teaching or context of ECEC and were less well prepared for the role. For example:

I think there are two types of newly graduated teachers…the graduates who have left school and gone straight into their teaching degree. My experience and my view are that those teachers are not as well equipped or experienced as the graduates who have gone through the early childhood system…have previously done their diploma then gone on and studied their degree…My experience has been that…educators who have started in the system and worked their way through…understand it, they’re not shocked by it, [but for new graduates who come straight from university] it’s like transplanting new plants and they get shock and just shrivel up and die because it’s too much for them. (SNFP)

The life-experience and age of the ECT was considered a further factor affecting preparedness to work in the sector, with mature-aged ECTs recognised as having greater life experience that prepared them for the role; whereas ‘younger’ graduates were perceived as sometimes lacking the emotional maturity for the demands of EC work. As one participant noted:

Life experience is a huge thing, so mature-aged students are often a different kettle of fish. (SFP)

Previous work experience was considered by a few (n = 4) participants as particularly beneficial in regard to teamwork. As one participant noted, for young graduates who come straight from university the ECEC setting is often their first work environment.

Areas in which ECTs are well prepared for the work

Pleasingly, all (n = 19) participants noted positive aspects of new graduates. Participants commented that graduates were generally enthusiastic about their role; they were ‘focused’ and with energy; they have high levels of professionalism; were inquisitive, willing and committed to learn more. For example:

What comes with a new grad is energy and usually vibrancy and a willingness to learn and all of those sorts of things. (Large NFP)

Participants identified areas where they believed new graduate ECTs were well prepared: several noted that ECT graduates have a good knowledge of child development; pedagogy and curriculum (n = 8); a few participants noted that graduates were able to develop good relationships and/or interactions with children and families (n = 5) and have good knowledge of cultural differences and inclusive practice (n = 2).

From the ones that I’ve seen, a good awareness of, cultural issues, or just more aware of issues in the community, open mindedness – develop an understanding of unique needs…they’re more open…It could be the younger generation is more accepting and more inclusive. (SFP)

Contradictorily, these were also areas many participants perceived new graduates to be less well prepared.

Areas in which ECTs are less well prepared

Areas where participants believed new graduate ECTs lacked skills, knowledge and understanding included a lack child development knowledge (n = 3) and an understanding of social emotional development.

Developmental knowledge – there used to be a high level of that…and my concern is that with the holistic focus, they don’t seem to drill down to specific development. They have developmental knowledge, but it is basic compared to what it should be. (Medium NFP)

Although eight participants said graduates had good child development knowledge, another 10 reported concerns in newly graduated ECTs’ capacity to conduct child observation, programming, planning, pedagogical documentation and documentation of children’s learning. Some (n = 3) participants mentioned that ECT graduates have limited capacity to articulate their practice to families. One participant perceived a disconnect between what students learn at university and the pedagogical documentation requirements in the workplace.

[Graduates are] not skilled in observing. So, lots of describing what children are doing. But, observing and analysing of children’s development, that’s where we notice it…it’s the communicating about educational programming and relating it to ‘my individual child’ that consistently comes much lower [on family survey results]. (MNFP)

The most commonly cited area in which ECT graduates were considered by all participants to be unprepared was in the capacity to put theory into practice (n = 19). This was noted particularly for work with children aged birth to 3 years (n = 7) and children with additional needs (n = 1).

I think the level of how theory works in practice is lacking. They are not ready, particularly LDC more than preschool, they are not ready for the younger children – things like toilet training. (MNFP)

A few (n = 5) participants mentioned that although ECT graduates may have good technical skills, they need time to develop the ‘craft of teaching’.

Practical application is probably where there’s the opportunity. So that’s probably where I think the practical experience component would make a big difference. They come out with a really good understanding of what they’re supposed to know. How they apply it in real terms is probably where they just haven’t had enough exposure. (Large FP)

One participant noted also that ‘on-the-job’ learning is difficult in a context as ‘public’ as ECEC where their practices are open to scrutiny from colleagues, families and ‘others’ – so ECTs cannot practice their skills and learn from their ‘mistakes’ in private:

It’s something that you don’t get to develop in private, and there’s lots of other decision makers in that space, so you have to influence quite heavily where you may never have had to have done that before in your life. (LNFP)

Teamwork and critical reflective capacity were two areas ECTs were viewed unprepared by a few participants (n = 5). One participant identified that ECTs are not autonomous, it requires team work, including with professionals from other disciplines.

You might have that knowledge of what you think children should be doing but there’s a lot of key decision makers in an early learning environment that means you’re not the only one and so finding a voice and also feeling confident in your knowledge is still something that takes time to develop for new grads. (LNFP)

The lack of capacity to critically reflect was identified by five participants as explained by the following comment:

I think there’s a bit of loss in terms of child agency. I’ve heard things like ‘Oh we really respect child’s agency here’ and you might say ‘Well, what does that mean?’, ‘Oh well just for the program outside, we just open the shed door and let the children decide’, ‘No, that’s called lazy’. (LNFP)

Another participant considered that ECT graduates lacked a teaching philosophy.

It seems like they understand the Early Years Learning Framework and the National Quality Standard, but don’t understand why they teach the way they do, or what influences their practice–they are unable to recognise or articulate their personal philosophies (Medium NFP)

A few participants (n = 3) considered that ECT graduates have limited understandings about the regulatory environment.

There’s also certain basic training that they’re floundering around, particularly in regard to regs and National Quality Standards and just the language and the jargon of what that means in the workplace…one of the challenges we have is really understanding the regs and legal responsibilities. We have graduates not being aware of the extent of the regulations and understanding the National Quality Standards and it impacts so much on their daily work. (MNFP)

Several participants mentioned particular pedagogical practices thought to be missing in recent ECTs’ practices including a notable reduction in ECTs’ use of music, singing, puppets and blocks in practice (n = 7).

I do see a lack of music happening. We are more likely to see the CD go on. There is still a place (and I don’t see it very often) for a group of children to get together and be galloping and skipping and hopping. Pianos have almost disappeared from our centres even if you couldn’t play it there was real value in taking the back off to show children you know – what pressing this does – you just don’t see it as much. I think EC people are really good at the creative arts – but I don’t see much movement anymore. (LNFP)

Preference in undergraduate degree focus

Participants noted differences in graduates’ preparedness for teaching depending on the focus of the degree from which ECTs graduated. The majority of participants (n = 11) indicated a strong preference for degrees that focused on the birth to 5 age range. As one participant exclaimed:

Please bring back the birth to 5! (LNFP)

Participants noted concerns with degrees that attempted to cover the birth to 12 age span. In particular, several (n = 6) were of the opinion that there is a lack of attention to the birth to 5 age group in degrees covering this larger age span:

There has to be a fundamental difference between someone who focused on EC at the university for 4 years compared to someone who does a span of birth to 12. There has to be a difference. The courses I have looked at are heavily laden toward the school curriculum, compared to someone who has really focused on EC in education. (LNFP)

Special note was made by a few participants (n = 3) over the loss of focus on early years’ socio-emotional development in degrees with larger age spans.

Concern with birth to 12 has been the dilution of the child development subjects, or the space that’s given inside the course for that to be packed out a lot, because from an early learning perspective, we know that that’s really where the rubber hits the road for teachers. There is intentional teaching that lives inside early learning, but it’s not instructional. It’s not structured learning, it’s not behind the classroom desk. (LFP)

Although one participant noted that the political context makes ECT unattractive, a majority of participants (n = 11) considered that ECTs from birth to 12 degrees were less tuned in to, motivated about or committed to the birth to 5 period.

People go in there really expecting to go into schools and into primary education predominantly. [They are] biding their time, and you’re a stop gap until the real job arrives in their mind. (LFP)

There was also a concern expressed by several (n = 8) participants that in degrees covering the EC and primary sector, the best graduates are drawn into school settings.

What we find is that the birth to 8 and birth to 12 tend to move straight into the primary sector early in their careers. They start off in EC and unless they have a real passion for EC they leave. It is seen as the poor cousin. It’s seen as, I’m just childminding young kids, versus I can be a proper ‘teacher’. (LFP)

It should be noted, however, that two participants also recognised that degrees with a birth to 5 focus miss out on primary curriculum ‘foci’.

Two participants noted limitations with Master of Teaching programmes. One commented:

I have to say that in interviewing Master’s students, they just don’t have the depth and that true lived experience and the context of what it is. I feel sometimes, it’s textbook learning and they’re highly intelligent, clearly, they’ve done a degree prior to that and they’ve come in and done an intensive of teaching, but it’s that real kind of core understanding. (SNFP)

Employment, induction and support of new graduates

The employees interviewed varied in their employment of new graduates. Five organisations chose not to employ new graduates tending to facilitate the transition of ECTs through the system by supporting diploma-qualified educators to attain their degree. Reasons for supporting internal educators linked to beliefs that new graduates were ill-prepared for the complexity of teaching, as previously noted above. A total of 14 services employed new graduates. Two participants said they targeted high-achieving students by providing scholarships and/or awards, but lamented that these were not always taken up by students.

A few participants (n = 4) recognised the importance of induction into the service when employing new graduates. However, they expressed frustration that although they recognise they have a responsibility inducting ECTs, they feel they are having to provide ‘remedial’ professional development on topics such as child development, which they expect graduates to know.

We don’t necessarily expect them to have an understanding of the regs. I think we can do that. But we don’t think our job is to be teaching foundational, child development and how it applies as a teacher, but our experience is, we’re having to do that. The other things like leadership and some understanding, we need to layout those things. We probably have to do that more than we’d like. But, understanding child development and how it applies and early childhood pedagogy, how that relates to child development. (MNFP)

A majority (n = 12) of participants also recognised the need for employers to provide particular support for new graduate ECTs. For example, some of the larger organisations have new graduate programmes. By way of supporting new graduate teachers, four organisations ensured (or worked towards) that any employee in a management position directly related to EC practice, such as area manager or centre director, had an ECT degree. Participants from small organisations expressed a desire for professional networks to support new graduates.

A majority (n = 11) of participants also identified a need for mentoring and/or supervising teachers both during their studies and once they are in an ECEC service. One participant noted that ideally, an ECT’s first experience should be with high-quality teachers. Another participant noted that ECTs need time to ‘develop their craft’ and all too often they are ‘catapulted’ into centre director roles too soon. It appears that the context of the environment impacts on the opportunity for mentoring of new graduates. That is, in a small centre the new graduate may be the most qualified, whereas in a larger centre, or a centre within a wider organisation, there are likely to be other ECTs with varied experience and possibly mentoring and networking opportunities across other centres in another organisation.

Connection between university, regulatory bodies and ‘the field’

Finally, although not a dominant theme across the participants, another interesting and important finding to emerge from our data, expressed by three participants, was their strong desire to be more connected to universities and regulatory bodies, and that their organisations want an opportunity to contribute to the content and structure of early childhood ITE programmes. In particular, they wanted universities to build connections with services that help put theory into practice for students.

How do we have more ongoing discussion between the institutions and the employers and really understand that what you’re currently designing and its intent and our version of, what does that mean in a workplace, and how do we then make sure we’re bridging the gap? (LFP)

Whether this desire of organisations to work collaboratively with universities and regulatory bodies is widespread is something that should be explored further.

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate employer perspectives about ECT graduates’ preparedness to teach in the early childhood sector. The study offers insight into the perspectives of 19 employers of ECTs in NSW and the ACT. The participants were from small, medium-sized and large early childhood organisations, and represented a mixed economy of service types including NFP and FP. There was no overt alignment of considered differences between the participants’ service types. From their perspectives as employers of ECTs, participants largely recognised the enthusiasm and professionalism of new graduates and their ability to interact and form relationships with a diverse range of children and families. They also recognised that new graduates had good knowledge of theories but sometimes struggled to put these theories into practice.

However, the participants overall identified several areas in which new graduate ECTs were less well prepared to teach in the early years. Although there was some inconsistency across responses, strong concerns were voiced by participants about graduate ECTs’ knowledge of child development, especially in relation to young children and their social-emotional development. This lack of knowledge was perceived to inhibit practices in child observation, programming, planning and pedagogical documentation, as well as new graduate ECTs’ abilities to articulate their practice to families. Other areas where the participants considered ECT graduates to be less well prepared included their lack of understanding of the regulatory environment and capacity to work in teams. Particularly troubling, given the highly reflexive nature of EC work, participants raised concerns about new graduate ECTs’ limited capacity to critically reflect. They also lamented the loss of some fundamental early childhood pedagogical practices, especially related to art and music.

New ECT graduates need to be ‘job ready’, but participants felt the current ITE programmes fell short of preparing such graduates. A pathway into an ECT degree, such as a diploma in ECEC, provides foundational skills that can be learned on the job. An EC educator who embarks upon tertiary study after having completed a diploma comes into the degree understanding the structure and duties of an early childhood educator. This is vastly different to that of an ECT who has completed a 4-year birth to 12 teaching degree with a minimum of 40 days (8 weeks) of professional experience in early childhood settings, and just 1 year of early childhood study. Participants advocated for more professional experience in early childhood settings so graduates are better prepared to translate theory into practice. This finding has policy implications for the regulatory bodies of ACECQA and AITSL with regard to minimum course content and professional experience pertaining to birth to 5 years in accredited ECE ITE programmes.

Ongoing professional learning is recognised as essential to develop the craft of teaching (AITSL, 2018). Participants from larger early childhood services indicated that they were able to provide resources to support new graduates; however, many of them lamented that the preparedness of new graduates was low. Being prepared to ‘hit the ground running’ was regarded as essential but was not always evident – contributing to two of the participating organisations choosing not to employ new graduates.

Some participants raised concerns about ITE programmes, especially those for birth to 12 teaching, which were falling short of these employer expectations of ECT graduates. In NSW birth to 12 years programmes are on the rise (Boyd, in press). Some participants perceived a lack of focus on the early years with graduates from birth to 12 year degrees and a concern that these graduates were neither committed to, nor want to work in, early years services. This finding aligns with previous research of pre-service teachers’ perspectives of why they chose the birth to 12 degree (Boyd & Newman, 2019; Gibson et al., 2017). Several participants expressed apprehension for the possible flow-on effects that this may have for the early childhood sector. Where the ECEC sector has to compete with the better wages and conditions of the school system, the participants had already witnessed the best graduates being lured into school settings. Participants expressed a desire to collaborate with the tertiary sector to structure ECT programmes to best meet the requirements of teaching in early childhood settings. Collaboration needs to include ACECQA and AITSL in Australia. Although these findings are instructive, it is important to note this is a small-scale study focused on organisations operating predominantly in NSW and the ACT and is therefore not representative of the entire Australian ECT workforce. There was significant variation in the degrees with no link to participants’ views of specific ITE programmes. Further research is required to investigate the optimal programmes for ECTs to ensure they are well prepared to deliver quality ECEC.

Conclusion

This research has provided a marker of programme quality of ECT programmes graduating students to teach in ECEC organisations in NSW and the ACT. Although Whitebook and Ryan (2011) caution that the precise nature of the EC degrees may not be directly related to the structure of the degree, further investigation is required of ECT programmes and an investigation into other factors that may influence ECT graduate preparedness such as teacher dispositions, content, professional experience, pedagogical approaches and the varied contexts (Nuttall, 2018). Future recommended research trajectories include exploration of ECT graduates about their preparedness for EC teaching, and tracking graduates as they develop their professional status as an ECT.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Wendy Boyd

Sandie Wong

References

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority. (ACECQA). (2018). Guide to the National Quality Framework. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-11/Guide-to-the-NQF_0.pdf.

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority. (ACECQA). (2019). NQF Snapshot: Q1 2019. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-05/NQFSnapshot-Q12019.PDF.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2018). One teaching profession: Teacher registration in Australia. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-review-of-teacher-registration/report/one-teaching-profession---teacher-registration-in-australia.pdf.

Berg

B. L.

(2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

Bloomberg

L.D.

Volpe

M.F.

(2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A roadmap from beginning to end. Sage.

Boyd

(in press). Quality programs, quality teachers: Pathways to becoming an early childhood teacher. Springer.

Boyd

Newman

(2019). Primary + Early Childhood = chalk and cheese? Tensions in undertaking an early childhood/primary education degree. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 4–13. doi:10.1177/1836939119841456

Couse

L. J.

Recchia

S. L.

(Eds.). (2016). Handbook of early childhood teacher education. Routledge.

Denzin

N.K.

Lincoln

(2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.

10.

Early

D. M.

Winton

P. J.

(2001). Preparing the workforce: Early childhood teacher preparation at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(3), 285–306. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00106-5

11.

Fenech

(2017). Preparing teachers for the early years: Evidence, ideology or market driven initial teacher education? Presentation for the ACECQA Higher Education Roundtable: 30 November.

12.

Gibson

Cumming

Zollo

(2017). Re-thinking discourse of teacher professionalism in early childhood education: An Australian perspective. In Li

Fox

Grieshaber

(Eds.), Contemporary issues and challenge in early childhood education in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 203–219). Springer.

13.

Gibson

McFadden

Zollo

(2018). Discursive considerations of child care professional experience in early childhood teacher education: Contingencies and tensions from teacher educators. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 39(4), 293–311. doi:10.1080/10901027.2018.1458259

14.

Hyson

Cox-Mitchell

(2016). Accreditation and patterns of licensure: Achieving the potential. In Couse

L. J.

Recchia

(Eds.), Handbook of Early Childhood Teacher education (pp. 69–85). Routledge.

15.

Manning

Garvis

Fleming

Wong

(2017). The relationship between teacher qualification and the quality of the early childhood education and care environment. https://campbellcollaboration.org/media/k2/attachments/0224_ECG-Manning-Teacher_qualifications.pdf.

16.

NSW Department of Education. (2018). Early childhood education workforce strategy 2018-2022. https://education.nsw.gov.au/early-childhood-education/working-in-early-childhood-education/workforce-strategy/NSW_WorkforceStrategy-accessible.pdf

17.

Nuttall

(2018). Engaging with Ambivalence: The neglect of early childhood teacher education in initial teacher education reform in Australia: Setting directions for new cultures in teacher education. In Wyatt-Smith

Adie

(Eds.), Innovation and accountability in teacher education (pp. 155–169). Springer.

18.

O’Connell

Fox

Hinz

Cole

(2016). Quality early education for all: Fostering creative, entrepreneurial, resilient and capable learners. http://vuir.vu.edu.au/33606/4/Quality-Early-Education-for-All-FINAL.pdf

19.

Patton

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.

20.

Queensland Department of Education and Training. (2016). Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce Action Plan 2016–2019. https://earlychildhood.qld.gov.au/careersAndTraining/Documents/workforce-action-plan-16-19.pdf.

21.

Rowley

Kos

Raban

Fleer

Cullen

Elliott

(2011). Current requirements for tertiary qualifications in early childhood education: Implications for policy. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012…early_childhood_misc

22.

Ryan

Gibson

M. L.

(2016). Preservice early childhood teacher education. In Couse

L. J.

Recchia

(Eds.), Handbook of early childhood teacher education (pp. 195–208). Routledge.

23.

Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood. (2012). Early years workforce strategy. https://docs.education.gov.au/node/2918.

24.

Taggart

Sylva

Melhuish

Sammons

Siraj

(2015). How pre-school influences children and young people’s attainment and developmental outcomes over time. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455670/RB455_Effective_pre-school_primary_and_secondary_education_project.pdf.pdf.

25.

Whitebook

Ryan

(2011). Policy Brief – Degrees in context: Asking the right questions about preparing skilled and effective teachers of young children. http://nieer.org/policy-issue/policy-brief-degrees-in-context-asking-the-right-questions-about-preparing-skilled-and-effective-teachers-of-young-children.