Introduction

Once again, Initial Teacher Education (ITE) in New Zealand is being presented as a problem. In a television programme about Mathematics in New Zealand primary and intermediate schools, Distinguished Professor Gaven Martin said that we have “amongst the poorest-prepared teachers in the world” (2021). The suggestion that there is something wrong with the quality of ITE students, staff and programmes is not new. This is a recurring theme with a long history in New Zealand (Alcorn, 2014; Cameron & Baker, 2004; Ell, 2021; Kane et al., 2005; Openshaw, 1999), Australia (Barnes, 2021; Kriewaldt et al., 2021; Wright, 2015) and elsewhere (Parker, 2018). Greater interest in selection practices comes in response to dropping pupil achievement in international test results and to populist rhetoric about the capabilities of graduating teachers (Alcorn, 2014; Ward et al., 2013). I argue that focusing on selection as a solution promotes flawed logic because there is no convincing evidence to link specific applicant qualities with success as a teacher after graduation. ‘Raising standards’ for entry will not achieve the goal of attracting more able applicants. What it might do, however, is screen out people with potential, reducing the diversity of successful applicants.

There has been some pushback on the negative discourse about ITE in the New Zealand research for example, Gunn and Trevethan (2020) investigated and interrogated the way the problems of teacher education are presented in policy documents in New Zealand. In another study about the work of teacher educators Gunn et al. (2016) looked for evidence to legitimise claims that there is a disconnect between ITE and the education sector. There is an ongoing problem in New Zealand that education policy is driven by unfounded assumptions and political sensitivities rather than empirical research (Couch et al., 2022).

One example of the popular rhetoric influencing education policy is illustrated in the Education Advisory Group document A vision for the teaching profession (2011), which states “The New Zealand initial teacher education system does not employ sufficiently robust mechanisms to select people into the profession” (p. 22). In this essay I examine this criticism by investigating the principles and practices of selection for undergraduate English-medium ITE programmes in New Zealand. This critical essay does not follow a traditional research report structure. Rather it is intended as a provocation to reflect on selection as one of the taken-for-granted aspects of ITE in New Zealand. First, I will analyse the requirements for selection into programmes taking undergraduate primary as an example, and then critically examine the tools regulated for use in the selection process by the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (2019), previously the Education Council, hereafter referred to as the Teaching Council. I conclude by challenging existing selection regulations for lack of an evidence base and advocate for removing barriers to selection and increasing diversity in the profession.

Background: ITE Selection Requirements

ITE in New Zealand is influenced by international practices and thus I consider both international and national literature to inform my critique. The most recent round of reforms to ITE in New Zealand traces back to the 2011 Advisory Education Group Report A vision for the teaching profession. This report links “rigorous selection processes” (p. 9) with better teachers and better outcomes for young people in schools. My analysis reveals that the warrant for this claim came from a report written by Barber and Mourshed (2007), written on behalf of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which linked high quality teaching with results from the global assessment tool Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Those authors celebrate Singapore and Finland as examples of countries with demanding ITE selection procedures aligned with good PISA results. This is problematic in two ways. Firstly, measuring quality teaching through student performance on PISA assessments requires acceptance of the usefulness of international standards for global education and a belief that quality teaching is measurable through test scores. This does not seem to be consistent with the New Zealand emphasis on teachers as adaptive experts who acknowledge, encourage and celebrate student diversity to develop each individual’s strengths (Gilbert, 2013; Timperley, 2012). Secondly, it is problematic to generalise across different educational ecologies. Singapore and Finland are countries where teaching is seen as a prestigious career and entry is restricted and competitive (Darmody & Smyth, 2016; Ingvarson et al., 2014). In Singapore, on average one in six applicants is accepted (Barber & Mourshed, 2007) and in Finland approximately 15% of applicants are successful (Darmody & Smyth, 2016). In both countries the number of available places is limited by the government. The situation in New Zealand is very different. Restrictions on numbers in ITE programmes are set by the provider and applicants are accepted, or not, based on perceptions of their ‘suitability’ for teaching as identified through regulated selection processes.

Selection processes and priorities are under considerable scrutiny in many countries. Examples come from Ireland (Darmody & Smyth, 2016), Canada (Holden & Kitchen, 2016), Finland (Kaasila et al., 2008), Scotland (Parker, 2018) and Australia (Australian Department of Education, 2022; Barnes & Cross, 2021; Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2015; Wright, 2015). Recurring themes across the literature suggest that a teacher can make a difference to student learning and that choosing the ‘best’ applicants for ITE is essential for a skilled teacher workforce. This view is evident in the New Zealand Education Council (2016) claim that “A future focused ITE system will need to attract into the profession able applicants with high cognitive abilities and the required dispositions to teach and learn” (p. 1). The 2019 Teaching Council regulations aim to ensure applicants are suitable through the requirements they have set for entry into all ITE programmes in terms of academic competencies, values, dispositions, and fitness to teach. To complicate the matter, we know that learners in our schools, and society as a whole, are increasingly diverse (Ell et al., 2018) yet selection practices in most institutions, especially universities, have changed little over time. Furthermore, very little work has been done in New Zealand to investigate selection for ITE, especially in regard to the voices of Māori. A summary of responses from the profession to the Education Council consultation document (2017a) included reminders about the importance of not excluding applicants from ‘disadvantaged’ backgrounds for fear of reducing diversity among teachers.

New Zealand Teaching Council Selection Criteria: Academic Ability

Academic ability is positioned as an important requirement for future teachers. In their comprehensive review commissioned by the Irish Ministry of Education, Darmody and Smyth (2016) looked at ITE entry requirements in eight countries, excluding New Zealand. They found that evidence of academic ability is part of the process of selecting ITE applicants in most of those countries. In New Zealand evidence of academic achievement is a significant part of the selection process (Teaching Council, 2019). Evidence of academic ability for most applicants relies on secondary school results because the majority of applicants for ITE in New Zealand are school leavers who apply for undergraduate programmes in universities. In 2021, 87% of primary sector students were studying at universities (Ministry of Education, 2023). Thus, for most applicants, evidence of academic ability comes from secondary school performance in the National Certificate of Education Achievement (NCEA).

For teacher education applicants, additional evidence of literacy and numeracy competency is required. The 2019 Teaching Council requirements formalised the expectation that applicants must pass a literacy and numeracy assessment set by the provider as part of the selection process. Confounding the process is the statement that “Those assessments must be no lower than the equivalent to University Entrance” (p. 43) yet meeting the literacy and numeracy levels for university entry is insufficient evidence of competency. NCEA is currently under revision, partly in response to concerns that literacy and numeracy assessments in New Zealand need strengthening (Ministry of Education, 2022). Interestingly, the 2022 review of progress regarding the implementation of the 2019 requirements for ITE programmes reports that the literacy and numeracy tests are “one of the most disputed of all the ITE Requirements” (p. 19), because many providers believe they are unnecessary.

The argument about the importance of literacy and numeracy competence for prospective teachers is strongly polarised. One view is that test scores are neither a measure nor a predictor of effective teaching (Wright, 2015). The other side of the argument, evident in the Teaching Council regulations for ITE providers (2019), is that teachers who cannot pass literacy and numeracy competency tests are not suited to teaching. There is very little research literature about the impact of requiring specific literacy and numeracy competency testing for applicants to ITE programmes (Hall & Zmood, 2019), but there are some insights available into pre-service teachers and mathematics capability.

Many students in New Zealand have entered ITE programmes with low levels of mathematical knowledge (Ingram et al., 2018; Young-Loveridge et al., 2012). However, there is evidence that students’ knowledge and attitudes to teaching mathematics can grow and change during their ITE programme (Ingram et al., 2018). There seems to be no causal link between high-level mathematics qualifications on entry to ITE and ‘better’ teaching and student achievement (Henderson & Rodrigues, 2008; McKechan & Day, 2015). Further, some believe that student teachers who have been successful mathematics learners may be challenged when teaching those who find mathematics difficult (Kaasila et al., 2008).

The literature about literacy capability and ITE is also limited. We do know that in New Zealand students who meet the University Entrance requirements of 10 literacy credits at Level 2 or above with at least five credits in Reading and 5 credits in Writing may not have the literacy skills necessary for academic success in tertiary study (Emerson et al., 2014). The ITE approval documentation specifically requires testing language competencies in “speaking, writing, reading and listening” (Teaching Council, 2019, p. 45). These assessments are to be passed prior to entry into an ITE programme. Potentially this could rule out some applicants who may have difficulty passing a literacy competency test but could become good teachers of literacy, for example, Burns and Bell (2011) claim that “teachers who have identities closely linked to their own experience of dyslexia will be ideally placed to help students to develop an understanding of their own dyslexic strengths and weaknesses” (p. 959). The evidence that links literacy and numeracy test results on selection with effective teaching after graduation is hard to find.

In effect selection for ITE is a form of assessment. As such it should reflect the principles of good assessment practice and be fair, transparent, and based on a range of evidence gathered over time (Crooks, 1988). Testing and screening as part of the selection process seems to be premised on the notion that academic ability is fixed, yet as teachers we know that motivation and self-efficacy also have an impact on academic achievement (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Harlen & Deakin Crick, 2003) Accordingly, secondary school performance and assessments may not be a genuine indicator of academic ability, nor of success as a teacher in the future.

In defence of screening based on academic qualifications researchers argue that “candidates with strong academic qualifications are more likely to be effective teachers, as measured by growth in students’ test scores” (Ingvarson et al., 2014, p. 66). Darling-Hammond (2000) allows that recruiting very able candidates may be one strategy to improve teacher education, but also claims that academic prowess is no guarantee of effective teaching. She uses the term “the bright person myth” (p. 170) to challenge the perception that academic excellence is linked directly to teaching excellence. After their extensive literature review, Darmody and Smyth (2016) came to the conclusion that the relationship between academic excellence and teaching excellence is weak. It seems that classroom capability after graduation cannot be determined by academic status prior to entry (Wright, 2015). Byrnes et al. (2003) agree that selection based on academic measures is not a useful predictor of success as a teacher. In New Zealand it seems that academic ability as a priority for selection for undergraduate programmes may be one of the taken-for-granted practices in ITE requiring further scrutiny and research.

New Zealand Teaching Council Selection Criteria: Values, Disposition and Fitness to Teach

The second Teaching Council (2019) selection requirement states that ITE providers should select applicants with the “required dispositions to teach and learn” (p. 1). Selecting suitable prospective teachers based on their dispositions is fraught with uncertainty and challenge. ‘Disposition to teach’ is a term that means different things to different people. Examples of desirable dispositions for potential teachers abound in the literature, for instance Carr (2011) links teaching with other caring professions such as nursing and the religious ministry, suggesting the need for qualities such as “sympathy, compassion, caring, empathy and personal example” (p. 174). Empathy was endorsed as an essential disposition for future teachers by Warren (2018) but rebuffed by Bullough (2019) who instead suggested applicants need to be able to “listen and learn” (p. 519). Passion and enthusiasm are highlighted as essential dispositions for teaching by many researchers (e.g. Zhang, 2019), while Bowles et al. (2014) draw attention to the importance of “adaptability, self-restraint, self-efficacy and motivation” (p. 368) for future teachers. New Zealand university ITE programmes have developed their own criteria for selecting applicants (see Table 1.)

Table 1 Selection information from University websites
Full size table

Currently there is no shared understanding of the necessary dispositions for a teacher (O’Neill et al., 2014). This gives rise to questions about the validity of attempting to assess dispositions as part of the selection process (DeLuca, 2012; Klassen et al., 2020). In their 2014 literature review for the New Zealand Ministry of Education, O’Neill et al. (2014) concluded that “there is little evidence that the development or reduction of particular dispositions in teacher candidates has been associated empirically with higher rates of success (participation, engagement, achievement) among their students in classrooms” (p. 50). In effect they are saying that assessing dispositions for teaching as part of selection has no valid evidence base. Because of the lack of clarity around what makes a good teacher, some applicants may be unfairly excluded from entry to teacher education, potentially reducing diversity in intakes to ITE programmes.

There are a wide variety of ITE providers in New Zealand (Teaching Council, n.d.) but the majority of undergraduate primary ITE students study in universities. Table 1 presents information about selection from the websites of New Zealand universities that offer undergraduate primary English-medium teacher education programmes, to identify what dispositions they look for as priorities for future teachers. The list is intended as a brief introduction to how teacher qualities are presented to prospective applicants on first glance.

From this table communication skills appear to be the most important competency for prospective teachers. Personal qualities are described in various ways with suggestions that being able to work with others is a useful attribute. ‘Cultural knowledge’ is used as an umbrella term and there are mentions of Te Reo and Tikanga Māori in some instances. From this initial encounter there is limited information given to encourage applicants from under-represented groups such as Māori and Pasifika. Given that most undergraduate English-medium ITE students learn to teach at universities, this is a missed opportunity to attract diverse applicants.

Overall, there is no consistency about which attributes or dispositions are desirable on the websites of these university providers of undergraduate primary ITE programmes. Interestingly the review of the implementation of the 2019 requirements (Teaching Council, 2022) stated that there were no instances where providers were required to meet conditions for approval related to dispositions to teach. This may reflect the lack of clarity about what these dispositions are or, suggest general agreement about those which were identified by providers. It must signal that all providers had included sufficient evidence of what would be assessed, and how, in their approval documentation, however whatever providers use as criteria for entry to ITE is unlikely to be evidence based.

In the absence of clear direction about dispositions for teaching the Teaching Council refers providers to the Values of Our Code Our Standards (Education Council, 2017b) as a guide. The Teaching Council Code of Professional Responsibility documents “the standards of conduct and integrity expected of everyone in the profession” (Education Council, 2017b, p. 8) and the Teaching Council suggests that the dispositions for teaching are encapsulated in the Values that underpin Our Code Our Standards, specifically whakamana, manaakitanga, pono and whanaungatanga. These translate as:

empowering learners to reach their potential; creating a caring, creative learning environment; showing integrity by acting in ways that are fair, honest, ethical and just; engaging in positive and collaborative relationships with our learners, their families and whānau, our colleagues and the wider community. (Education Council, 2017b, p. 8).

These Values suggest that selection should focus on applicants’ integrity, creativity and ability to form positive relationships. While laudable and logical, the questions about links with success as a teacher in the future remain. Attempting to use the Values to decide whether applicants are eligible for entry to ITE programmes is challenging. In Table 3 endeavour to apply those Values to guide selection into ITE programmes.

The Teaching Council also has regulations about the tools and procedures that must be used to assess applicants’ suitability for ITE programmes. Significant among these is the requirement that selection should be undertaken in partnership with stakeholders. The requirements suggest that “involvement will help build a deeper understanding of the type of people that key partners want to be teachers, as well as help increase diversity of candidates selected” (Teaching Council, 2019, p. 49). The plausibility of that claim is dependent on a range of factors including the personal views and experiences of the stakeholders, many of whom are likely to fit the existing demographic in the profession. The requirements call for Māori and iwi input where “reasonable and appropriate” thus ensuring that providers do not have to comply. Without including a range of stakeholders in the selection process we may simply consolidate the status quo, especially given the lack of clarity about the desirable dispositions of applicants for teaching.

Internationally there are repeated calls for more diversity in the teaching profession (Zeichner, 2018) in response to more diversity among the communities and the learners that teachers work with (Teaching Council, 2022). Diversity could refer to a wide range of factors including race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, neurodiversity, gender-diversity or age. In terms of ethnic diversity in New Zealand schools the proportion of New Zealand European students has declined from

55.9 percent in 2009 to 50.3 percent in 2017, while Māori and Asian students have increased their share of the school roll. Māori students made up 23.9 percent of the school roll in 2017, compared to 21.7 percent in 2009. The proportion of Asian students in the school roll has increased by a third between 2009 and 2017, from 9.1 percent to 11.8 percent. (Education Review Office, 2018, para. 1).

Further, the proportion of students with Pacific heritage in New Zealand schools is greater than that in the general population (Education Review Office, 2018).

The teaching population in New Zealand is less diverse. Statistics NZ 2020 figures say that almost 81% of primary ITE students are female, over half are under 25 and nearly 71% are described as European. If our selection processes remain unexamined, we will perpetuate the status quo where students are required to fit into existing programmes and to join the preponderance of white, female ITE students. We are clearly not selecting for diversity nor do our students reflect the makeup of our society.

The criteria used for selection into undergraduate ITE are in need of some scrutiny and so are the regulations about selection set by the Teaching Council (2019). The argument in this critical essay is that it is time for robust research to critique what we do and why we do it that way, being open to alternatives to our taken-for-granted practices.

Tools for Selection

All ITE programmes in New Zealand are required to interview applicants face-to-face, whether in person or online, and to gather confidential referee reports about each applicant (Teaching Council, 2019). Information about selection was gathered from New Zealand university websites to show how these requirements are being interpreted for undergraduate teacher education programmes (Table 2).

Table 2 University ITE selection practices
Full size table

All of these providers are meeting the 2019 Teaching Council requirements for referees reports and interviews as they are required to do, and apparently there are few differences and little innovation in this space. In fact, the 2005 Kane et al. report into ITE shows that interviews and referee reports have been part of selection practices in New Zealand for many years. What follows is a critical analysis of the regulated selection practices to see if they are fit for purpose.

Interviewing

In New Zealand all ITE providers must follow the Teaching Council requirement for face-to-face interviews. Interviews have long been part of the selection process in New Zealand, however individual interviews are expensive and time consuming for institutions. For such an intensive process there should be a significant positive outcome but there are disagreements about the usefulness of interviews as a selection tool in the research literature (Kosnik et al., 2005).

In their 2016 literature review, Darmody and Smyth presented the pros and cons of interviewing. They found that some claim interviews are useful for establishing applicants’ communication and interpersonal skills, while others question their value emphasising the expense involved and the risk of subjectivity. Ostensibly, an individual interview offers the opportunity to assess applicants’ oral communication skills, their ability to engage and their personal attributes such as humour. Realistically for many applicants, especially school leavers, this may be their first ever formal interview and they are likely to be stressed and anxious, potentially compromising their interview ‘performance’. The validity of interviews as a tool for assessing the suitability of ITE applicants is an issue (Caskey et al., 2001; Holden & Kitchen, 2016; Klassen & Kim, 2019). Judgements may be informed not only by the performance of the applicant but also by the expectations that the interviewers bring to the interaction. There is evidence that interviewers warm to applicants whom they find likeable and that many of their decisions are based on intuition. Individual bias based on initial impressions is also described by Lehane et al. (2021), who make the point that there is little correlation between performance in an initial interview and performance in the classroom. They suggest that a first step in increasing the validity of interviews is to establish the relationship between effective teaching and student outcomes to clarify what to look for in an applicant.

Some providers in New Zealand use group interviews as an alternative way to meet the Teaching Council requirement. In the USA, Byrnes et al. (2003) explored a group interview process where two assessors worked with eight ITE applicants. They asked applicants to discuss issues as a group and then to share their impressions of themselves and each other. Their study was based on the premise that effective teaching requires “interpersonal, and leadership skills” (p. 164). The findings demonstrated that the group assessment process was a valid predictor of successful teaching as measured by ratings from teachers and university supervisors after entry. They concluded that if assessors are given training to establish consistency, shared understanding of the assessment criteria and reliability in coding, then group interviews can be a valid predictor of student teacher success. On the other hand, interviews, especially group interviews, may not be an appropriate tool for selection. Leshem (2012) highlights the potential for applicants being constrained by cultural values in group interview situations. Whether interviews are done in a group or individually, they provide another example of a taken for granted practice requiring scrutiny and research.

Referees’ Reports

The Teaching Council requires that referees send confidential reports about applicants directly to ITE providers (Teaching Council, 2019). Referees’ reports are intended to be an opportunity for people who know the applicant well to vouch for them. In New Zealand, applicants who have contacts who can write well in English and who are willing and able to highlight their strengths, are advantaged. In most cases there is limited guidance for referees and where forms require ratings, these may not be objective (Casey & Childs, 2007). To validate every referee report would add more cost and time to an already expensive selection process. There are doubts about the validity and reliability of referees’ reports as a tool for selection (Albanese et al., 2003; Holden & Kitchen, 2013).

Testing

While this is not a requirement in New Zealand, this critical essay would not be complete without some mention of selection based on standardised testing. In response to calls for greater rigour and more reliability and validity, the use of psychometric testing of applicants for ITE is common in some countries (Parker, 2018). A situational judgement test as part of selection into ITE was advocated by Klassen et al. (2020) in the UK, who claimed that measuring attributes at selection may have a relationship with later professional competence, using evidence from other disciplines. An Australian example comes from Bowles et al. (2014), who developed a complex process based on multiple tests and questionnaires, which they claim will contribute to good decision-making in candidate selection. New Zealand has not adopted testing to establish suitability for teaching, perhaps because there is no consensus on what to test for, and there is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of standardised testing for predicting success as a teacher (Casey & Childs, 2007).

Selection Using the Values of Our Code Our Standards

The 2019 Teaching Council regulations state “judging disposition to teach is an area needing further development but as a starting point, providers should focus on the Values underpinning Our Code Our Standards” (p. 50). ITE providers are advised to judge applicants’ suitability for teaching against the Values that underpin Our Code Our Standards and the Code of Professional Responsibility. While both the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Values that underpin the Teacher Standards are important once applicants are accepted into ITE programmes and as they enter the profession, their usefulness as indicators of suitability for teaching is, I suggest, unproven. Table 3 unpacks how they might be evidenced using the tools regulated for use in for selection.

Table 3 Evidencing the values of our code our standards
Full size table

This table highlights the current difficulties ITE providers have in endeavouring to use the Values of Our Code Our Standards (Education Council, 2017b) to establish an applicant’s suitability for teaching prior to entry. A key limitation is that the Values were written to provide inspiration and guidance for teacher practice and were not intended to be used as criteria for selection.

Conclusion

In this critical essay I began by signalling that selection practices are being blamed for poor quality teachers. Critical analysis of the priorities for selection and associated selection practices reveals a lack of reliability and validity, at least in the university sector. I conclude by challenging the selection regulations for lacking an evidence base and advocate for removing barriers to selection and increasing diversity in the profession.

The suggestion in New Zealand is that there are some prerequisites that prospective teachers should have, yet there is no consensus or evidence about what those are, and how they should be identified. To date the literature review on dispositions to teach commissioned by the Ministry of Education (O’Neill et al., 2014) is the most significant contribution to the New Zealand research in this area. Their findings make it very clear that there is work to be done to clarify whether there are dispositions for teaching, how to assess them, and whether this should be done prior to, during, and/or at the end of an ITE programme.

One possible alternative to selection before entry could be open entry to undergraduate ITE programmes (as long as child safety and University entrance requirements are met). Rigorous assessment during the ITE programme informed by academic results, engagement in campus classes, professional behaviour and growth in teaching competence in schools, would determine whether students were suitable for teaching. I argue this would give a fuller and more valid picture of the suitability of a prospective teacher than selection prior to entry. Perhaps we could focus on the dispositions of the students in our programmes rather than the dispositions of our applicants and avoid the need to master the art of prophesy.

In this critical essay I have constructed an argument that can inform a research agenda to investigate selection practices in New Zealand. Much of the prevailing discussion about the failures of ITE, including poor quality students, is anecdotal and apocryphal (Gunn & Trevethan, 2020). There is no empirical evidence of a correlation between selection practices and effective teaching. If we believe that we should continue to invest in screening people out before entry, we need to overhaul our selection processes to ensure they are fair and fit for purpose.