Introduction

Australia has longstanding difficulties with staffing rural schools (Cuervo & Acquaro, 2018; Halsey, 2005; Hudson & Hudson, 2008; Trinidad et al., 2014; White & Reid, 2008), and schools in low socioeconomic areas, or with high levels of cultural diversity (Halsey et al., 2019; Mayer et al., 2017). Similar problems have been identified in other countries with dispersed populations (Aubusson & Schuck, 2013), including North America (Munsch & Boylan, 2005) and South Africa (Mukeredzi, 2016). There have been two relatively recent Australian reviews of rural education, one conducted by the Victorian State Governmental (Expert Advisory Panel for Rural & Regional Students, 2019), and the other by a Federal Government Independent Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education (Halsey, 2018). Both identified the major challenge facing rural education is attracting and retaining high-quality teachers. Halsey (2018) argued that achievement discrepancies between rural and urban locales across educational measures including the Australian National Assessment Program of Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), and Year 12 completion rates, all underscored the need for ‘a highly competent teacher workforce for country schools’ (p. 16). The Halsey (2018) review recommended that initial teacher education (ITE) providers be encouraged to offer pre-service teachers (PSTs) opportunities to experience regional, rural and remote contexts, with the hope that doing so would increase the pool of graduate teachers willing to work in country schools.

Such pre-service teaching experiences have been positively associated with PSTs being open to teaching in rural schools post-graduation (Halsey, 2018; Hudson & Hudson, 2008; Richards, 2012; Wallace & Boylan, 2007). Trinidad et al. (2014) found PSTs who had participated in a pilot field trip to rural schools and communities in Western Australia reversed their starting perceptions that rural placements were very challenging and were subsequently more open to the possibility of working in a rural school. The authors attributed this change in attitude to the social contact PSTs had with country teaching staff and community members that was explicitly integrated into their field trips.

In addition to exposing PSTs to these contexts, various incentives (typically financial) have been offered to those willing to take on hard-to-staff teaching positions in country schools. For instance, the Victorian Department of Education and Training (DET) committed $84 million to help attract teachers to rural, remote, and hard-to-staff schools (DET, 2020), however, such incentives have reportedly produced several unintended consequences, such as promoting high turnover rates of rural teaching staff whereby incentivised teachers leave as soon as they fulfil their time-based obligations (Im, 2009; Wallace & Boylan, 2007). Cuervo and Acquaro (2018) argue that financial incentives are not the strongest attractor of teachers to country areas, and that previous positive associations with an area, such as having lived in a rural community or having had a positive rural pre-service teaching experience, were a more potent motivator. The Victorian based Expert Advisory Panel (2019) found that while there was support for incentives to attract and retain teachers and leadership staff in rural schools, such incentives needed to be heterogeneous to better suit the needs and priorities of the particular schools and communities, so may also include subsidised accommodation, professional development opportunities, or other relocation supports.

This study aimed to investigate the experiences of PSTs from two Australian universities who had undertaken rural placements arising in response to the two governmental reviews mentioned previously. We wanted to ascertain what the participants themselves felt were the benefits of such placements, what impacts they noticed on their pedagogical development, and importantly, to test the hypothesis that country placements can influence PSTs being open to future employment at country schools. Hence, the main research question guiding this study is:

Do diverse learning and teaching experiences within rural professional experience contexts influence PSTs’ interest in future employment at country schools?

Literature review

Purpose of professional experience in all locations

Pre-service professional experience (PE) is a significant component of ITE, ensuring graduates meet professional standards for classroom practice (Halsey, 2018; White & Forgasz, 2016) and helping to secure the nation’s capacity to meet the quality education needs of its population (Halsey, 2018). Various policy documents provide an outline of the purpose and preferred methods of implementing PE opportunities. Internationally, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) considers PE as a key indicator of successful ITE programs and a crucial component of effective teacher preparation (OECD, 2011). This is reinforced by the Australian Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) call for ITE programs to incorporate ‘real opportunities’ (TEMAG, 2015, p. 132) for PSTs to integrate theory and practice through PE.

Benefits of experiencing rural professional experience

A number of significant benefits for PSTs have been attributed to rural placements. For instance, having greater exposure to the smaller social context of country locations makes the pivotal relationships at the intersections between school, community, and self, more evident. Thus, in addition to their relationship with their mentor, less obvious relationships are more visible, such as those between individual PSTs and: the school leaders; the professional support staff at the school; and parents. Additionally, rural placements often highlight subtle differences in rural teaching processes and nuanced characteristics of place and community (Mitchell et al., 2019; Walker-Gibbs et al., 2018). Burton and Johnson (2010) emphasise this synergy between PSTs’ sense of belonging to, and identifying with, the country, and the importance of relationships formed with the people and the place itself as significant to the retention of teachers in rural schools. The Halsey (2018) review noted that interviews conducted across rural, regional and remote locations revealed the importance of ‘a teacher’s commitment to place and people…to building student achievements and successful post school pathways’ (p. 39), hence it is important to factor in the intellectual and personal qualities that underpin a capacity for such commitment when recruiting for rural, regional, or remote schools.

PE provides a platform for PSTs to participate within a community of experienced teachers to develop and grow themselves as professional teachers. Rural PE provides experiences that are specific to rural teaching practice. The development of teacher identity in PSTs is crucial to the quality of their emerging capacities as effective teachers: ‘We need to recognise, in the structure and content of the academic curriculum and in professional experience, that this development is equally as important as the acquisition of skills and knowledge to developing effective professional practice’ (Strangeways, 2017, p. 820). Engaging with rural teachers contributes to PSTs’ professional growth as teachers and the PSTs on rural PE are better able to make more realistic assessments of their own suitability to teaching in the country (Mitchell et al., 2019).

Challenges associated with rural professional experience

Where rural PE is voluntary, only a minority of PSTs elect to undertake a rural experience. Halsey (2005) found only 22.7% of Australian placements took place in rural locations. In contrast, PSTs who grew up in rural areas are more likely to elect to work in rural schools (Cuervo & Acquaro, 2018), and therefore more likely to undertake rural PE. Some PSTs undertaking country PE for the first time have expressed concerns about the distance between the rural location and their usual professional support structures (e.g., fellow students and ITE educators) and anticipated less support to be available at the rural schools (Halsey, 2009; Halsey et al., 2019; Trinidad et al., 2014). They also had concerns about the extra costs associated with travel and accommodation, being unable to maintain current part-time employment (Halsey, 2009; Halsey et al., 2019; Hudson & Hudson, 2008; Trinidad et al., 2014) and a sense of isolation from personal social support structures (Munsch & Boylan, 2005).

PSTs also expressed professional concerns about their inexperience with teaching rural students. Munsch and Boylan (2005) reported PSTs worried about lacking exposure to, and experience of, rural pedagogy—including teaching strategies, learning activities and teacher-student interactions that are authentic to the rural community context. Halsey et al. (2019) also noted PSTs’ concerns about teaching multi-age/year level class groups, while others have reported negative feedback from PSTs about: feeling insufficiently prepared for rural teaching practices (Trinidad et al., 2014); a limited supply of educational resources; issues arising from low student attendance and motivation; and, relationship difficulties between teacher/students/parents/community (Munsch & Boylan, 2005).

Research design

To explore the impact of a rural PE on PSTs’ attitudes to working in country schools we conducted a qualitative study involving PSTs (N = 20) from two universities who had completed a rural placement.

Qualitative methodology

Qualitative methodological approaches underpinned this study wherein such research involves the use of words or text as data that are collected and analysed in various ways (Braun & Clarke, 2013). A fundamental aspect of qualitative research is that there is an avoidance of assumption that one version of reality or knowledge exists and that multiple versions of reality are closely linked to the context in which they occur (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Using a qualitative method, this research aimed to glean insights and improve understandings around the way things are and why they are that way, through the first hand reports of participants related to the experiences they had while undertaking rural placements (Gay et al., 2012).

The data were collected using interviews. The interviews were semi-structured, with questions designed in advance, but not rigidly adhered to in terms of precise wording, or sequence (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Since the interviews were held during the 2020 COVID pandemic, they were conducted as one-on-one Zoom meetings which were recorded and subsequently transcribed.

Thematic analysis

An inductive approach to the coding was applied where the researchers attempted to draw meaning from the data, allowing the data to speak for itself, with themes emerging from multiple readings rather than generated from personal biases and without the ‘influence of preconceived notions’ (Kawulich, 2017, p. 771). Thematic analysis derived from a complete coding approach was applied when analysing the transcripts. A complete coding approach allows researchers to identify any patterns within the data relevant to the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Following this, excerpts of data with associated codes were uploaded into a digital coding book. The code book was developed as a central space for the researchers to share their coding, along with the relevant quotes from the interview data and any notes or reflections for discussion (Kawulich, 2017). Once coding was complete, the authors discussed the emergent themes, comparing reasoning and justifications relating to the formulation of each code. Once an agreed set of themes and codes were arrived at, the data were re-analysed to situate the themes and sub-themes within each transcript.

Participants

The participants were PSTs from both Masters of Teaching and Bachelor of Education degrees. The level of degree ranged from 1st year Master of Teaching and from 2nd to 4th year Bachelor of Education across two universities in Victoria, Australia. Participants were invited to participate in the project if they attended a rural placement between 2018 and 2020. We have drawn from Kline and Walker-Gibbs’ (2015) definition of rural when discussing the location of students from non-metropolitan areas, wherein rural or country areas are considered to be those separated by road distances that produce significant access limits on the full range of goods, services, and social interaction otherwise available in metropolitan areas.

As a condition of ethics, participants were approached by intermediary PE Offices at the universities rather than through direct contact from the researchers. Twenty PST participants who lived in metropolitan and rural locations joined the study. Participants are identified in our results and discussion using a format of their pseudonym followed by a description of where they reside geographically, for example, Sandy (Rural) (see Table 1).

Table 1 Participant demographics
Full size table

The study received ethics approval from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID 23972).

Analysis and Discussion

The data provide compelling stories of rural placements’ impact on PSTs. Clearly, the opportunities afforded to those students undertaking country PE can be qualitatively different from the experiences reported from metropolitan placements. Participants clearly showed that being smaller, more collegiate, and with a genuine sense of community and place, enabled them to engage in the schools far more as colleagues—or teachers—than many had experienced in their metropolitan placements. Three broad themes were identified within PSTs’ stories (pedagogical development, connecting to place, and engaging with the community) and some distinct attitudes relevant to future employment were highlighted. These included the stage of life of the participants, their perceptions of their own level of experience and the support they believed to be available in a rural school, and access to their existing social and family networks.

Pedagogical development

In many ways, these PSTs reported feeling part of the school such that the placement experience was typically more akin to unpaid employment than a brief student placement. Participant responses highlighted that participating in country placements had enabled a sense of autonomy where planning and teaching were concerned. Participants noted that in rural contexts, there was more flexibility. Natalie (Rural), for example, contended that this was ‘because you don’t have that many staff to consult on everything that you do’. Other participants reflected that they were able to take on additional responsibility, often for the first time in their PE. Abigail (Metro) noted that this opportunity enabled participants to ‘practice, [and] develop materials’ and teach the class more extensively, often in the first days of their placement. This was a new experience for some of the participants, with Abigail (Metro) adding that ‘the rural placement was the first opportunity that I had to really take ownership of a class and design my own materials and teach for a long period of time’.

Admittedly, many of these PSTs were experiencing rural-to-rural PE where, to a large extent, because they were already part of a rural community, it could be argued that they had already developed a ‘place-consciousness’ (Gruenwald, 2003, p. 619) for the schools they taught in, hence their acclimatisation ‘gap’ was small. However, even those PSTs having metro-to-rural placements reported a similar affinity for the country community, and appeared to quickly adapt to the local environment and cultures (Morrison & Ledger, 2020; White & Reid, 2008). This adaptation was evident in the ways the PSTs reported their sense of connection to the country setting, and highlighted their openness to consider rural settings in their future graduate destination career decisions.

Connecting to ‘place’

The overall impression from PSTs was arguably one of acceptance within the school community, with PSTs starting to feel part of what Green (2016) describes as the ‘place/community-based framework’ (p. 45). Several PSTs remarked on the prevalence of seeing and interacting with students and their families outside of the school grounds within the local community. Tracy (Rural) remarked that being involved with families outside of school and seeing them in the local community provided a good understanding of her students. For example, Tracy (Rural) told a story about seeing a student ‘down the street’ late at night, and subsequently knowing that the child would likely be tired in the classroom the next day, and understanding why, providing her an opportunity to make adjustments in class if needed. Natalie (Rural) commented that in small towns it was especially common to encounter students after school hours in the local community. ‘Whether it’s going to church or going to the country fete or whatever, you’re going to have closer interactions in those smaller communities for sure’. She added that while new teachers not familiar with small rural communities could find this uncomfortable, she had

grown up with that, seeing my own teachers in different locations after school and stuff like that, but I guess it adds a whole other layer of professionality, I guess, of what you’re doing and role modelling without even being at school. Natalie (Rural)

Consequently, for PSTs in smaller rural towns, interactions with students and families outside of the classroom also required some consideration of how they conducted themselves in the local community, in stark contrast to the relative anonymity to be had in metropolitan teaching.

In terms of teaching experiences, it has been argued that the significance of place within the curriculum orientates PSTs towards recognising and working with the ‘nuances of [geographical and social] context’ (Pennefather, 2016, p. 218). Several authors have encouraged PSTs to engage with place-based authentic learning activities that are appropriately endemic to the particular community and its environment (Green, 2016; Pennefather, 2016; Smith & Sobel, 2010). For participants who undertook placement in remote communities in the Northern Territory (NT), considering the local context was particularly important. Sarah’s (Metro) observations of the ways in which local contexts were embedded in pedagogical practices helped her develop a deeper understanding of how ‘community involvement is really good for a child’s development’. Sarah (Metro) outlined the impact on her connection to students and their family when she found that some parents were employed in the classroom as support staff. She explained how

an Indigenous worker came in and [was] kind of like a teacher’s assistant to help out with the behaviour management. So we would interact with them on a daily basis, and a lot of them ended up being parents or family members of the students.

She found this helped in bringing the students’ ‘outside life into the classroom and connecting the two’ and mentioned that this was something she would like to focus on after graduating. Similarly, Xiao (Metro) noted how a local event, such as a crocodile being caught, could change the planned classroom lesson from writing procedural texts to ‘writing about crocodiles’. She noted that she had to ‘switch it over because out bush what’s going on in town is what the kids are focused on’. This exemplifies how these participants learned the power of responding to student interests and immediate circumstances, and how this enhanced engagement by providing self-evident relevance for their students that could be incorporated into subsequent lessons. While such experiences were clearly exotic for those PSTs, they were an ordinary part of community life in those schools, and these novel experiences proved a compelling source of engagement with the broader community, a theme we explore next.

Engagement with community

It could be argued that the novelty of such placements is what generates moments of valuable insight for ‘out of town’ PSTs, which otherwise go unnoticed in their ‘home’ locale. This illuminates one of the central strengths of rural placements in exposing PSTs to different settings where they become more aware of the differences in homelife between their students and themselves. As a result, it could be expected that such a phenomenon would be short-lived, whereby familiarity would eventually reinstate a kind of ‘context-blindness’ that results in a decontextualised curriculum dominating their approach. While the notion of context-blindness is not necessarily exclusive to the needs of rural communities or schools, for some rural-based PSTs, their connections and experiences of their own rural and regional locations were prevalent in contextualising the curriculum and how they formed relationships with students during PE. Jackie (Rural) remarked that the mentor teachers demonstrated the importance of drawing on student interests and experiences to inform their teaching. She added that the advice she would give to PSTs contemplating a rural placement would be to emphasise how important it is to learn about children’s experiences of living in the country, because it is different to a metropolitan child’s experience and is ‘such a rich place to start your planning and teaching—from their experiences’. Natalie (Rural) made a similar observation, noting that her farming background helped her develop relationships with the boys in her country classroom by discussing tractors whereas, according to Natalie (Rural), ‘bringing up John Deere tractors in metro areas was pretty much just a waste of time!’.

Many of the other interactions PST participants in this research project had with the local and wider community were not necessarily exclusive to a rural placement, and as such were not impacted by place-based considerations. These interactions included involvement in school information nights for prospective parents and students, and incursions at the rural schools involving wildlife educational providers. While these types of activities provided a valuable experience of everyday teaching and working in schools, they were similar to experiences often encountered during metropolitan placements. However, as the literature suggests, these experiences definitely contributed to the development of PSTs professional growth (Mitchell et al., 2019; Strangeways, 2017), all of which informed their thought processes around where they would ultimately like to work—which leads us to the main research question of the current study, which is the focus of the next section.

Graduate destinations

While PE in rural locations helps inform PSTs professional growth, our results determined that, in terms of short term graduate destinations, for some participants their rural PE merely reinforced the trajectory they were already on. Wallace and Boylan (2007) noted the majority of Australian ITE courses are offered in metropolitan-based universities and the vast majority of their PSTs attend metropolitan schools. Accordingly, few of these PSTs have any experience of country communities and schooling, and a short burst of rural PE is unlikely to have a major impact on the attitudes developed from a lifetime of exposure to a different type of schooling.

For participants who were not considering relocating outside of their familiar contexts to pursue a rural based teaching job, four inter-related factors helped shape their decision. These involved considerations around: (i) life stage; (ii) not feeling like they had enough teaching experience or professional support; (iii) fear of (premature) isolation; and, (iv) employment considerations. None of these factors were mutually exclusive, and indeed there is a great deal of overlap between them, however there is some merit in looking at them separately to better appreciate the different emphases at play.

Stage of life

The PSTs interviewed were of different ages and at different stages of life. Trish (Rural) was attracted by the opportunities afforded by country communities, however her family responsibilities meant she was seeking employment in her local area, a coastal rural community not far from a major regional city, in order to meet the needs of her children who had already commenced primary and secondary school. So while Trish was happy to work in a rural setting, she was unwilling to relocate to a new one. By contrast, Abigail (Metro) ‘wasn’t ready to move into a new community’ and wanted to wait until she was more ‘stable and grown up’, so she too felt the need to stay with what was already familiar, before—or instead of—taking on the challenges of relocating. Even Jackie (Rural) who was already living in the country felt the need to develop her independence further before moving to another country area, saying ‘I need to be more grown up and more, like, less dependent on home, on my parents, and things like that to make the change’. Marcus (Rural) represented the anti-ideal of Rural PE programs in that he was willing to relocate from his rural home to a metropolitan setting. Marcus (Rural) felt that staying in his country community was ‘very comforting’, however, having moved to a metropolitan context to attend university he found that he had built a close-knit network of friends with ‘more opportunities’ available to him, therefore, he felt compelled to relocate to the city and make the most of whatever opportunities might arise.

One of the PSTs who was open to adventure, Kimberley (Metro), found her NT placement inspirational and ‘hope[d] to go back’, however, only for a limited time ‘I hope to do at least a year out there, potentially even two’, while Tracy’s (Rural) willingness to explore rural options was curbed by her partner’s opportunities ‘if it were up to me then definitely I would want to. But I’m living with my partner at the moment and I know that he’s an engineer and it’s very hard to find work in rural areas.’ Naomi (Rural) was in a similar position, stating that

I definitely want to go back out bush. I wouldn’t go now, my daughter’s four next year, I wouldn’t want her to go to a school where she was the only Caucasian child. It sounds bad, but you want your child to be one of a majority.

But there was at least one PST, Trish (Metro), who was unconstrained by such factors, explaining that ‘I don’t have family in Melbourne so I don’t, I don’t have a pull to be in the city particularly. Yeah. So I think as an example, I’m much more mobile’.

These motivations associated with different stages of life for the various PSTs resulted in most being unwilling to ultimately relocate to a rural school in a way that would be deemed successful in terms of policy objectives. Only Trish (Metro) was free, and motivated, to choose a country career – but interestingly phrased her availability to work in the country in the negative sense of ‘not being pulled to the city’ as opposed to ‘being pulled to work in the country’. In addition to not moving to the country because of their personal stage of life, PSTs also related reticence arising from their stage of professional life as well.

Not having enough experience or support

One of the concerns raised by PSTs about teaching in country schools, particularly remote schools, was feeling unprepared and unsupported. Sarah (Metro) was willing to consider working in a remote Indigenous community, but not for at least another 2–4 years, in order to gain more teaching experience first. In a similar vein, Sandy (Rural) who lived in a small regional town, was only considering schools in regional cities for her future employment, preferring a larger rather than smaller rural location noting that ‘I need a team around me’ in the first 5–10 years of her teaching career to ensure she had ongoing support as she started teaching. Sarah (Metro) echoed this sentiment saying ‘my short term plan is doing my graduate year or years …in an urban school. Purely for the fact that there’s a lot more resources, and I feel like I’d get a lot more support’.

Even when the supports and community ethos of country settings were a strong attractor for PSTs, the plan to work in a country school was typically couched in vague terms of ‘sometime in the future’. For instance, Jackie (Rural) explained, ‘the relationship that the community has with each other, with sport, with the school is something I really want to get involved in, one day.’ Trish (Metro) was also very open to working in the country stating, ‘I do plan to do that in the future, just not the near future’. And Sanaaya (Metro) explained that ‘I do want to consider that seriously in 5 years or so, when I’ve…gain[ed] (inaudible) resources and skills in a more familiar environment’. These ‘not just yet’ intentions echo the idea of needing to be better prepared, but may also be linked to an implicit idea that there are other things to be done or enjoyed in the city before eventually teaching, or even retiring, to the country – perhaps when they have become less interested in the attractions of city life, and in less need of professional support. As Jackie (Rural) put it, ‘I definitely will be looking in the future, maybe I will retire into the country and retire into a nice rural school, yeah, do a sea change. I really really like the idea of rural country communities’. So despite the appeal of country lifestyles, it seemed that few were sufficiently motivated to want to move to the country any time soon while they were still socially active, which is reinforced by many of the PSTs expressing worries about the potential for being isolated in the country.

Fear of isolation

The theme of isolation runs through both of the previous themes, manifesting as a perceived lack of community resources and professional support in country areas and how country living is better suited to a later stage of life – and therefore something younger PSTs might struggle with. For instance, Sarah (Metro) noted that other teacher graduates she had met had discussed how ‘they struggled a fair bit being so isolated’, and those participants more open to pursuing a rural teaching position were mainly already rural based. For example, Naomi (Rural) was more inclined to work locally due to the convenience of working near home. However, while also open to changing where she lived, she also mentioned that she did not want to become stagnant (and isolated from stimulation), therefore would look for some variety in her subsequent years of teaching. Of the metropolitan PSTs, Angelina (Metro) felt the isolation acutely, ‘I think the biggest difference would be the isolation factor. When you’re in the remote community … it’s very, it is very isolating’. On the other hand, Declan (Metro) was very open to working in the country, but the choice to relocate was less about the school and more about how non-isolating a ‘lifestyle’ the community afforded. He had clear social requirements that would guard against isolation, so he explained how he would need to investigate the local infrastructure, proximity to larger regional towns, and then make a ‘practical decision’ based on the rental market and access to recreational activities—which effectively ruled out more isolated remote locations for him. Similarly, Trish (Metro) who was determined to work in a disadvantaged regional school explained that, for schools further out ‘it comes down less to the school itself, you’re sort of starting to think about it as a lifestyle choice if you want to have something, some sort of proximity to a regional centre…[with] access to the kind of recreation and everything’. Interestingly, at the time of the interview Trish (Metro) had just been offered a job at a country school, ‘but I already had a job lined up here in Melbourne that I thought was too good to turn down’. So even for those actively seeking work in the country, a metropolitan alternative is often deemed preferable.

But while isolation is a negative factor, one of the positive factors for PSTs was the potential for better employment conditions, which is discussed next.

Employment conditions

One aspect of rural teaching that offered near universal appeal was the potential to secure more generous terms of employment – not so much in terms of financial or other incentives, but rather in terms of contract terms and career progression. It is common for graduate positions in metropolitan schools to consist of 12 month contracts or less (Preston, 2019), whereas country schools might offer longer contracts. Angelina (Metro) was still unsure about seeking work in a rural school because, even though isolation was not a factor for her, the vacancies she had seen on offer were only marginally attractive: ‘I didn’t feel isolated or disconnected or anything like that, which was good. But I’m not sure about taking a year or two year contract at a [country] school. I’d definitely have to consider it more’. On the other hand, the attraction for Declan (Metro) was the likely accelerated career opportunities available at a rural school, he said

I think the appeal is huge, particularly just the opportunities and the potential for faster progression, being able to take on extra responsibilities…the potential to professionally develop is so much at a faster rate and still have it be valuable and meaningful is really there in a small school.

There was also a distinct sense that despite the opportunities to improve their pedagogy, teaching in the country was a much easier prospect than in city schools. Charlotte (Metro) expressed a preference for the less stress and demands in country schools, ‘I find the city very busy. … in the country, it is very laid back. And you can kind of relax… You’ve got a small class, you’ve got a small school’. Marcus (Rural) also commented on lower expectations and fewer professional demands, even of himself, ‘I suppose, the expectations as well is just maybe a little lower… Melbourne seems so much more focused on “gotta get this done” whereas back home I feel like, you know “that was a bad lesson, oh well”’.

Undoubtedly the rural placement experiences of the PSTs in our study helped enlighten them to diverse communities, teachers, students, and families, and exposed them to the uniqueness of rurality, however, in terms of any intention to alter their graduate destinations toward rural settings, the outcomes were less encouraging and, on balance, might be considered a failure. Even worse, it may be the case that many of these PSTs have benefited from the generosity and support of country communities only to teach in metropolitan schools, or to use country schools as a way to accelerate their career so they can then return to the city and deprive the rural school of a valuable resource and investment. This effect can be seen in the idea that PSTs take on rural placements as a form of educational tourism.

Ultimately, the temporary and distant nature of these placements put them into the realm of the novel, but ephemeral. Angelina (Metro) summed it up as ‘…I don’t know if it was the novelty of doing it, whether it would be different if it was a long term situation. I knew that I was leaving after 3 weeks’. There was a perception that country teaching was best suited to certain demographics, as Naomi (Rural) observed, that there were those passing through, ‘I found when I was out bush the people that were out bush were young single adults, or young couples with no children…’, and those on the cusp of retiring, ‘…and then people that were there to boost their super and children had already grown up.’ Meanwhile, the kind of person who is wanting to ‘put down roots’ who would be a perfect addition to a country location has probably already put them down elsewhere and is unwilling to shift again.

Conclusion

The reports of the PSTs interviewed in this study suggest that, while superficially plausible, the recommendation of the Australian Independent Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education (Halsey, 2018) that universities providing PSTs with rural PE would help address staffing shortages in non-metropolitan areas, is ultimately ineffective. This is not to say that rural PE is not without merit, in fact it is clear that the PSTs benefited a great deal from these placements. However, these benefits related far more to greater opportunities to hone their pedagogical craft, while simultaneously increasing their awareness and sensitivity to place-based curriculum opportunities. These are not insignificant results, but they do not appear to contribute to any level of workforce migration and may therefore be evidence of such programs effectively exploiting rural schools and their communities for the benefit of metropolitan schools.

Nevertheless, this is a useful finding, since it helps make the case that these placements are a valuable source of teacher development, and that there may be merit in expanding rural PE for metropolitan PSTs, and metropolitan PE for rural PSTs because of the benefits to PSTs’ pedagogical development, but without burdening these programs with the weight of solving staffing difficulties. In fact, it provides some evidence that personal schooling experience and personal circumstances are far more influential in determining graduate employment destinations than short-term incentives or rural experiences.

This could form the basis of a broader empirical survey of schools and teachers to better understand the impact of policy-driven rural incentive packages. The benefits of rural PE for PSTs’ pedagogical development and exposure to place-based curriculum also encourages us to look elsewhere for how to tackle the hard-to-staff issue, and potentially offers a way forward. Future projects could also involve interviews with final year secondary students in regional, rural, and remote locations to explore these students’ attitudes to teaching as a career choice and providing further evidence to respond to policy imperatives around staffing of rural schools.