University Initial Teacher Education programmes are strong and fit for purpose: The ongoing denigration of these programmes must be challenged

Initial teacher education (ITE) is a transformative space where preservice teachers learn the craft of teaching, further supported by two years in the classroom before registration. ITE programmes at universities in Aotearoa New Zealand focus on teacher education, not teacher training, and are taught by experts in the field who are both experience-informed and research-informed. High quality is ensured through rigorous approval, review and monitoring by the Teaching Council Matatū, moderation between universities, and strong relationships with the sector. Preservice teachers engage with current curriculum content and priorities, pedagogical content knowledge, and understanding of how to teach and engage with learners while considering diversity and inclusion. They also engage in a minimum of 80 days across one year or 120 days across three years in a school or centre. This means that preservice teacher learning is a shared responsibility across universities and schools.

ITE is also a challenging space. Since early in the current government’s term of office, the government has consistently held ITE providers to account for the preparedness of teachers and the achievement of students in New Zealand. ITE institutions have been described as “woeful” by Minister Stanford, with particular focus on university-based ITE. Such statements are, at worst, inaccurate and unresearched (see earlier de-bunking of the ERO report around preparedness) and, at best, unhelpful in the current climate of teacher shortages.

There is an increasing range of models of ITE, and among these, inequitable levels of government support for the preservice teachers involved. Many preservice teachers struggle financially because of difficulties maintaining part-time work during professional experience, and this impacts on their success in the programme and teacher supply. Funding for initial teacher education has not kept pace with rising costs, and neither has funding for schools, which support teachers in their two years prior to registration.

In the latest salvo, Minister Stanford stated that initial teacher education has not been “up to standard when it comes to mathematics” and should include what the government refers to as “structured mathematics” and the “science of learning”, with a focus on “explicit teaching”. These statements have been made without knowledge of what is taught – ITE providers have not been asked whether they include these concepts, and if so, to what extent they include them within a balanced programme.

Minister Stanford also stated that ITE providers have not “required a high enough bar [for preservice teachers] to get in.” Yet, it is the Teaching Council that sets this standard, not the ITE providers. Prime Minister Luxon has announced that the solution to this issue is that preservice teachers will need 14 credits from Level 2 NCEA mathematics achievement standards to enter primary ITE programmes. It is unclear what consultation process was used to make this call, when this change would need to be implemented, and what the transition arrangements might be.

Primary mathematics teachers do need robust mathematical content knowledge to fully engage with pedagogies known to be effective for mathematics teaching. However, there is clear evidence that preservice teachers can grow their mathematical content knowledge over their ITE programme. There are serious implications related to the proposed Level 2 NCEA mathematics requirement in terms of ensuring the supply and diversity of teachers. Furthermore, there is already a newly established numeracy co-requisite, in schools now and compulsory from 2026. First, the impact of this numeracy co-requisite on the mathematical content knowledge of preservice teachers needs to be understood. Then, a decision can be made if any further changes are necessary.

The ongoing denigration of University ITE providers is baseless and harmful. We call for proper collaboration to determine effective methods for developing robust mathematical and pedagogical content knowledge to prepare teachers for teaching mathematics in New Zealand classrooms. We call for the government to equitably support our ITE providers and our future teachers.

Associate Professor Naomi Ingram, University of Otago; Louise Fitzgerald, Massey University; Dr Jyoti Jhagroo, Auckland University of Technology; Megan Clune, University of Auckland; Dr Bilinda Offen, University of Otago; Dr Generosa Leach, Massey University; Dr Lisa Darragh, University of Auckland; Dr Robin Averill, Adjunct Professor and Honorary Research Associate, Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington; Dr David Pomeroy, University of Canterbury; Dr Jane McChesney, University of Canterbury; Kim Madden, Massey University; Dr Pamela Vale, University of Waikato; Emily Pearce, Massey University; Jessie Shuker, University of Canterbury; Dr Raewyn Eden, Massey University; Dr Kerri Spooner, Auckland University of Technology; Susanna Wilson University of Canterbury; Professor Jodie Hunter, Massey University