Introduction

Australia is a country represented by diverse populations and communities, and this diversity is mirrored within Australian schooling systems amongst the student demographic. Despite this, historically Australian teachers in schools have (and remain) a disproportionately homogenous workforce relative to the diverse student population (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2022; House of Representatives & Hartsuyker, 2007). The reasons for a lack of diversity are wide and varied. Many students from diverse backgrounds do not see themselves represented in the broader teaching workforce and a ‘one size fits all’ (or standardised) approach to the education, attraction, recruitment, and retention of teachers may deter many from considering this as a career option. In this study, we explore the experiences of students from diverse backgrounds and the stakeholders who support them as they undertake once aspect of system standardisation—the national Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education (LANTITE).

To date, no studies have explored pre-service teacher diversity and student experiences of undertaking LANTITE. Against the background of an increasingly diverse school student population, the data shared in this paper is drawn from a larger mixed methods study which explored the experiences of 189 pre-service teachers across Australia. As findings emerged from a thematic analysis it became apparent students from diverse backgrounds were disproportionally represented in having unintended and negative experiences, revealing specific additional complexities the test presents to an already underrepresented cohort. This paper therefore seeks to explore and better understand the experiences of ITE students from diverse backgrounds and signals recommendations to improve these experiences.

Background

LANTITE was introduced in 2016 in response to the Action Now report (Department of Education and Training, 2014) commissioned by the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG). Recommendations in the report suggested initial teacher education students undergo literacy and numeracy assessment to ensure that they are placed among the top 30% of the adult population in relation to literacy and numeracy. LANTITE is designed and administered by the not-for-profit organisation, the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). It is comprised of two tests, one for literacy and one for numeracy. Each test contains 65 questions which range from multiple choice to short answer style items. Both tests must each be completed in two hours and may be undertaken in a face-to-face testing location or online, via a remote invigilation (proctoring) service. Remote invigilation requires a reliable internet connection and a laptop/personal computer to complete the test. There are also other criteria relating to testing room requirements and testing delivery administration specific to the remote proctor arrangement.

Review of literature

High-stakes testing in teacher education

Large-scale standardised testing and assessment is a well-established practice in education (Shepard et al., 2005) and there exists a significant body of research relating to high-stakes testing, most notably in the United States of America (Amrien & Berliner, 2003; Hursh, 2005; Jones et al., 2003), Globally, these tests are utilised in various forms throughout formal schooling systems, and teacher education has become a particular focus in some countries, including Australia. It is generally agreed high-stakes testing of teachers is designed to (a) ensure a particular standard is met in relation to having quality teachers in schools, (b) to ensure teachers are able to teach to a required minimum standard (Darling-Hammond, 2005; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010) and, c) where necessary, hold them accountable for their practice (Jones et al., 2003). Whilst governments often find high-stakes tests a potent form of public relations capital to ensure quality teaching and education in schooling systems, this notion of ‘quality teaching’ is problematic, and one Bahr and Mellor (2016) argue is difficult to define and subsequently to monitor.

High-stakes testing has well documented concerns relating to unintended consequences in teacher education, including, curriculum narrowing (Berliner, 2011); the narrowing of educational experiences for students (Polesel et al., 2014); unintended barriers to entry into teaching by way of acting as a deterrent factor (Angrist & Guyran, 2008); cultural bias in testing instruments (Albers, 2002; Bennett et al., 2006; Petchauer, 2015, 2018); testing anxiety (Bennett et al., 2006); the distortion of teaching practices (Polesel et al., 2014) and, cheating by both the student and the teacher (Amrein-Beardsley et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2003). LANTITE is not immune to these negative (and unintended) consequences. The exacerbation of inequity and injustice resulting from high-stakes tests is a focus of this paper, particularly in the context of mounting calls for an increase in teacher diversity as a result of the recent Quality Initial Teacher Education (QITE) Review (Department of Education, 2022).

Many of the inherent issues of high-stakes tests have been well researched with the standardised test used in Australian schools, National Assessment Plan—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (Howell, 2012; Mayes et al., 2019; Polesel et al., 2014; Swain et al., 2018; Wyn et al., 2014). NAPLAN is also used as a dubious measure of teacher quality with individual school results being compared in public forums with limited context for the general public to draw their own, often uninformed, conclusions about teacher performance and school quality (Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2012).

LANTITE

To date, there is limited existing research related to LANTITE. Much of the research focuses on analysis of the test content from literacy and numeracy perspectives (O’Keeffe et al., 2017), LANTITE’s impact on teacher identity (Burke et al., 2020), unintended negative testing emotions (Wilson & Goff, 2019) and overall student experiences related to test-taking (Hilton et al., 2020). Other initial studies into student perceptions of LANTITE call for further research into both student and stakeholder voices in relation to the impact of the tests (Barnes & Cross, 2020; Burke, et al., 2020). Limited published data is publicly available regarding nationwide success rates of students completing the test, however, Barnes & Cross, 2020 provide a compelling argument regarding the effectiveness of LANTITE excluding students who cannot meet LANTITE’s requirements. Their study highlights on first attempts the pass rate of the literacy component is 90.2% and 95.6% for the numeracy component. These figures are in line with the 2015 pilot LANTITE test results of a 90–95% pass rate (Knott, 2016).

Diversity

To further explore the notion of diversity, it is important to first define what we mean by diversity. Historically, definitions of diversity have been limited to interpretations of race, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. However, over time the definition has expanded and come to include difference in sex and gender; disability; beliefs and religion; social classes and socio-economic status; as well as race, ethnicity and culture (Mitchell, 2016). In this paper it is this broader understanding of diversity that we embrace, acknowledging that one, several or all these categories may affect an individual (or a group) of students from interacting in a school or learning environment (Shapiro et al., 2001).

Whilst much is written about diversity and education internationally, little is known about what specifically contributes to the lack of teacher diversity in the workforce (Goldhaber et al., 2019). This, therefore, makes it a complex issue to understand and ultimately address and rectify. However, it is clear from what literature that does exist, representation of a diverse teacher workforce is important for students in educational settings (Dee, 2005; Goldhaber et al., 2019). Findings from these studies suggest positive ‘role model’ effects in terms of student school attendance and overall learning gains. Furthermore, Dee (2005) finds racial and ethnic dynamics influence teachers’ perceptions of student performance and one of the ways to address this is to train and recruit more underrepresented teachers. Given that the recruitment of pre-service teachers from diverse backgrounds will involve students who are likely to be ‘First-in-Family’ to attend university, additional study and pastoral supports are necessary to support their transition and success at university (Groves & O’Shea, 2019).

Teacher diversity in Australia?

Traditionally, teachers in the formal Australian school system have been predominantly Anglo-Australian. The introduction of a British school system shortly after Australia’s colonisation ignored education and learning which had occurred uninterrupted for thousands of years amongst First Nations people (Campell & Proctor, 2014). In its early infancy, teacher education in Australia was largely restricted to British migrants, particularly clergy aligned with Christian faiths (Campell & Proctor, 2014). Fast forward over 200 years and the nation’s teacher workforce is still largely homogenous and does not represent the many facets of diversity including culture, disability and socio-economic status (Santoro & Allard, 2005).

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), in 2021 29.1% (or approximately 7.5 million) of Australia’s population were born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2022). Of those born overseas, the top 4 countries of birth included, England, India, China, and New Zealand (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2022). The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) identified in 2019 that 5.1% of 15–24 year olds identify as Indigenous Australians (Australian Institute of Health Welfare (AIHW) 2021). According to the same Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2019data, 9.3% of young people had a disability (Australian Institute of Health Welfare (AIHW) 2021). These statistics are worth reflecting on especially when set against those related to wider teaching population in Australia.

The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) reported in 2018 on diversity in school leadership and teaching. Their findings revealed that only 8.9% of primary teachers and 10.8% secondary teachers identified as speaking a language other than English at home (McKenzie et al., 2014). Only 1.1% of Primary teachers and 0.8% of Secondary teachers identified as Indigenous Australians (McKenzie et al., 2014). These figures are substantially less than the overall population of Australia, with 21% of Australia’s population speaking a language other than English at home and 3.3% identifying as an Indigenous Australian (McKenzie et al., 2014). Interestingly, there is an absence of data on Australian teachers with a disability, however, in Australia approximately 18% of the population identifies as having a disability (McKenzie et al., 2014), 9.3% of 15–24 year old’s have a disability (Australian Institute of Health Welfare (AIHW), 2021), and 7.7% of children under the age of 15 have a disability (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2019). These figures indicate a teacher population which does not represent the diversity of Australia’s population, and more specifically, Australia’s youth.

A 2022 Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) report raised concerns about whether the initial teacher education pipeline reflects the diversity of the school student population (Department of Education, 2022). Interestingly, this report offered minimal recommendations to address the imbalance of diverse representation in the teaching workforce but does suggest the need to support access and success of ITE students from diverse cohorts. It also acknowledges that a general approach to attracting diverse cohorts will not be effective and that “targeted incentives are needed for different cohorts” (Department of Education, 2022, p. 6).

Diversity and the need to embrace it within schooling systems is clearly articulated through the AITSL standards. The Graduate Teacher Standards specify a number of areas where graduate teachers are required to explicitly demonstrate practice and expertise in relation to the following Standards; 1.3 Students with diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds; 1.4 Strategies for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students; 1.6 Strategies to support full participation of students with disability; 1.5 Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities; 4.1 Support student participation; and 2.4 Understand and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to promote reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2014).

Dee (2005) argues that a diverse teacher population is important to the health and functioning of school systems. Representation matters in education, particularly for populations who may be marginalised or socially disadvantaged (Ogbu, 1992). Few studies in Australia explore the impact teacher representation has on its students, however there are other studies which focus on the experiences of being an Indigenous teacher in Australian classrooms. Hogarth shares these stories and some of the demands placed upon Indigenous teachers including the ‘tug of war’ these teachers experience fulfilling the dual role of teacher conforming to school expectations whilst being a member of and advocate for Indigenous communities (2019). Studies in the United States of America have identified students who have a teacher of the same race are likely to improve student test scores (Dee, 2004), this was particularly evident for African American students who had an African American teacher. Findings related to improved test-scores have also been replicated in other more recent studies (Egalite et al., 2015; Goldhaber & Hansen, 2010). Whilst these studies focus on student test-scores to highlight the benefits of teacher diversity on students from diverse backgrounds, there are other benefits unrelated to testing outcomes, including positive role modelling and being change agents (Dvir, 2015; Moore et al., 2020) higher expectations of their students (Gershenson et al., 2016), subjective evaluations (Ehrenberg et al., 1995), behaviour management (Dee, 2005), and increased levels of motivation and engagement (Rasheed et al., 2020).

Diversity in the teaching workforce fulfills several important functions. Firstly, teachers from diverse backgrounds have cited feeling the importance of their employment in role modelling and becoming change agents for students who may not have otherwise been academically aspirational (Dvir, 2015; Moore et al., 2020). Secondly, some studies highlight teachers from diverse backgrounds are more likely to have higher expectations of their students, particularly students who may themselves come from diverse backgrounds. Dee (2005) suggests that this is due to the removal of stereotype threats and unconscious bias which may potentially occur in other classrooms. Finally, teachers from diverse backgrounds also have the benefit of being able to draw on their own cultural contexts or lived experiences (for example, living with a disability) to select appropriate instructional strategies or interpret behaviours from students from similar backgrounds (Ehrenberg et al., 1995; Moore et al., 2020; Vogel & Sharoni, 2011).

Whilst this study does not specifically identify the number of students from diverse contexts who have successfully met the standard for LANTITE, it is important to consider and, if data was to become available, establish the existence of any disproportionality, and the potential for overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians, CALD and students with disability who may be experiencing challenges related to accessing and succeeding in these tests. Given the comments made in the Quality Initial Teacher Education Review (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2022), an over-representation of students from diverse communities not meeting the LANTITE standard would be an unintended impact on the future teacher workforce.

Method

The qualitative data shared in this paper were derived from a larger mixed methods study designed to help better understand student experiences of LANTITE. Data in the overarching study were gathered in two simultaneous phases and involved an online quantitative survey and in-depth interviews, which helped ensure flexibility and allowed for a deeper, richer elicitation of the diverse experiences (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) and are outlined below.

Research design

A sequential mixed methods research design involving two phases was used. Both Phase One and Phase Two involved two distinct participant groups, (a) ITE students and (b) ITE stakeholders. At the end of the Phase One, participants from both groups, were invited to opt-in to Phase Two, a semi-structured telephone interview. Figure 1 provides an overview of the design of the sequential mixed methods approach undertaken and the relationship of this study to the overall study.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of the overall sequential mixed methods research design and qualitative study

Full size image

The focus of this paper provides purely qualitative data as it offers a deeper and richer exploration of student experiences. Qualitative methods allow the researcher to deeply explore the real-world events and experiences (Yin, 2016) students have in relation to test-taking. The research design is centred in providing a voice to students (Mockler & Groundwater-Smith, 2014) with students and stakeholders creating their own meaning from their individual experiences. Similar studies privileging student voice have been undertaken in Australia in relation to a similar high-stakes test, NAPLAN, to explore and give voice to test-takers (Howell, 2012; Swain et al., 2018).

Participants

Two distinct participant groups were targeted as part of this study. First, ITE students included a range of students from undergraduate and postgraduate initial teacher education programs encompassing early childhood, primary and secondary education programs. The second participant group included ITE stakeholders which included teachers who may have undertaken LANTITE themselves or had recent experience with ITE students who had undertaken the test, and teacher educators who are regularly in contact with ITE students and supporting them in preparing for LANTITE.

Participants from both groups were recruited nationally utilising an established network of teacher educators who shared both the ITE student and stakeholder questionnaires within their university cohorts. There were also instances of snowballing where students referred other students to the survey via their own social networks.

ITE student participants in the study were from all states and territories in Australia and were studying at 32 different universities or teachers' colleges. A total of 43% of student participants were enrolled in an undergraduate initial ITE programme and 57% were enrolled in a postgraduate course. Students were represented across a range of teaching courses, including Primary (37%), Secondary (40%), Early childhood (6%) and combined degrees (15%).

ITE stakeholder participants included academic and professional staff who directly support students in teacher education and were employed at universities/teaching colleges. Teachers employed in schools (and educational leadership) were also included in the ITE stakeholder participant group. A total of 61% of stakeholder participants had more than 16 years’ experience in the education sector.

A formal university ethics approval for this research was obtained, all participants involved in the research were volunteers who opted into the study. Each participant was provided with written informed consent prior to the commencement of data collection. All participants were provided with pseudonyms.

A total of 10 ITE students and 12 ITE stakeholders from the larger study have been utilised in this study to explore teacher diversity.

Limitations

It is acknowledged that this study was limited to volunteers and therefore susceptible to a potential bias towards students who held strong beliefs about LANTITE. The study is also limited by students who disclosed their diversity status; it is possible other students from diverse backgrounds participated in the study but did not disclose their diversity (either because it was not relevant to their experiences, or they did not want to disclose this information). Caution therefore should be exercised in claiming any generalisations from this study. Despite this, the varied experiences of research participants provide valuable insights into helping us better understand the test taking process and reveal several unique additional hurdles and challenges experienced by students from diverse backgrounds.

Results and analysis

The results below are based on a thematic analysis of 10 students and 12 ITE stakeholders who identified issues and concerns relating to students from diverse backgrounds. These themes are further explained by using key illustrative quotes from the participants.

Qualitative responses from both Phase 1 and 2 were combined and analysed using NVIVO12 software. These responses were coded into overall themes and subthemes using the conventions of Cresswell’s (2015) thematic content analysis. An inductive process was used to identify key themes initially and to develop a provisional list of codes (Miles et al., 2020). From here a codes-to-theory model (Saldana, 2013) was utilised to allow for themes to emerge from the data. Table 1 provides an overview of these themes and subthemes identified by ITE stakeholders and students. In some cases, a sub-theme may have been mentioned several times by the one participant.

Table 1 Overview of themes from ITE stakeholders and ITE students related to teacher diversity
Full size table

All quotations from stakeholders and students have been provided a pseudonym to respect their individual experiences and privacy but are importantly provided identity with the use of a name rather than a number.

Unintended consequences

The theme of unintended consequences was identified on 40 occasions, the highest number of responses were recorded in the sub-theme of adverse events, which were recorded 20 times. These adverse events included experiences of emotional distress, panic attacks, and feelings of shame for not having met the required standard for the tests. In one case, an ITE student identified five separate adverse events related to experiences of undertaking the tests and these have been counted as separate adverse events in Table 1.

The negative impact on mental health and wellbeing were also recorded on 14 occasions throughout the data. For students who have multiple unsuccessful attempts, they describe an escalation in poor mental health and overall wellbeing with each unsuccessful test attempt. Many of these students from diverse backgrounds were on a re-attempt and disclosed the fall-out of this on their mental health and wellbeing.

“It is the most stressful thing I have ever done, and I am not a stressed-out person. That’s what gets me, and I would say that my numeracy would be quite high, but I think now that the pressure I am undergoing for my 5th attempt. In the last test I was so stressed I was almost vomiting; I could not calm myself down” (Ellis).

One student contacted the researchers after the study was complete to share that she was successful on her final attempt and is now teaching. However, the trauma from multiple attempts at the tests was still present long after the test attempt. Traumatic and adverse events in high-stakes testing have been previously documented in NAPLAN testing of Australian school children (Howell, 2012; Mayes & Howell, 2018).

Additional hurdles

Both ITE students and stakeholders identified additional hurdles students from diverse backgrounds face in accessing adjustments on 35 occasions. These additional hurdles included the collection of additional documentation for reasonable adjustments, additional financial costs and the narrowing offering of testing adjustments. Many of these hurdles, such as providing evidence of their disability or medical condition can have multiple impacts on the student and their capacity to be successful.

ITE stakeholders and students in this study identified concerns relating to the test design and the test implementation and its greater impact on students from diverse communities. Some of these concerns related to difficulties for some students in accessing testing locations, this is particularly significant for students in remote locations as was identified in the data on 4 occasions. The option of attending a face-to-face testing centre is not available to them and as a result they are required to utilise, at times, unreliable internet services.

Broader consequences of standardised testing can vary greatly with participants, however some of the ITE stakeholders, like Simone, question the validity of the test and raise concerns relating to cultural bias.

“I have concerns about the comprehension for Indigenous Australian students because the test is culturally biased. Even I tried to do it and there were instances where there were two answers which I thought were right, and you can only choose one! But for them, the inference is culturally biased.”

Several students and teacher educators highlighted some groups of students from diverse backgrounds have had limited formal test environment experience (especially for some Indigenous Australian students). These are students who will have achieved educational outcomes via alternative (and equally valid) pathways which have not included implicit and explicit formal examination preparation technique. Students recruited via non-traditional pathways are typically first-in-family and are also from underrepresented communities requiring additional support to bridge the disconnect between traditional and alternate pathways.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore student and stakeholder experiences relating to teacher diversity and undertaking LANTITE. There were two clear findings from this study, (a) unintended consequences of standardised testing, and (b) the additional hurdles for students from diverse contexts.

The benefits of having teacher diversity in the workforce and education system more broadly are clear—students from diverse backgrounds benefit academically, socially and emotionally from diverse teacher representations in the classroom (Dee, 2005; Goldhaber et al., 2019). An added benefit is that students from dominant cultural backgrounds also gain from having teachers from different social and cultural backgrounds to their own. Therefore, cultivating pathways and limiting barriers for diverse teachers is important, especially given Australia’s increasingly multicultural population and commitment to reconciliation with its First Nations.

Unintended consequences of standardised testing

Unintended impacts of high-stakes testing have been well documented internationally particularly in relation to cultural bias in test design (Albers, 2002; Bennett et al., 2006; Petchauer, 2015, 2018); curriculum narrowing (Berliner, 2011), negative affective responses (Petchauer et al., 2015), and cheating (Amrein-Beardsley et al., 2010). Cautions of LANTITE delivering similar unintentional consequences has been echoed in previous research particularly in relation to Indigenous Australian students (van Gelderen, 2017), mental health (Hilton et al., 2020), and diminished confidence in overall personal literacy and numeracy (Burke et al., 2020).

A range of unintended consequences of standardised testing were recounted in this study, including adverse events for students, manifesting in panic-attacks and managing the prolonged effects of anxiety. In extreme cases, some students were denied access to their existing employment due to grandfathering of LANTITE requirements into courses. These requirements resulted in students with provisional licenses to teach (and who were already teaching) having their employment revoked. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing highlight that those who mandate high-stakes tests should be aware of negative consequences, such as unintentional exclusion or testing biases. Furthermore, the standards also recommend data and information regarding unintended consequences should be collected and considered as part of ongoing evaluation of the testing process (Joint Committee on Standards (2014)). It is unknown if these details are being collected by the testing authority from students or universities. Whilst a private firm was commissioned by DESE in 2019 and 2020 to consult with universities and students on LANTITE, recommendations have not been made widely available and the parameters of this study did not specifically mention unintended consequences or impacts of the tests on students.

Given many students from diverse contexts are ‘First-in-family’, strategies and support systems for these cohorts could be considered, including encouraging help seeking behaviours and specific mentoring support to develop positive study behaviours (Groves & O’Shea, 2019) and mental health support to assist them with feelings of belonging and the invisible struggles in defending decisions with family to pursue university studies (King et al., 2019).

Additional hurdles for students from diverse contexts

A range of additional hurdles for students from diverse contexts were raised by both ITE students and stakeholders. To obtain a reasonable adjustment to the testing conditions students who have a disability or health-related needs must “…produce evidence through documentation that is no more than 1 year old. Documentation older than one year will be acceptable if it is accompanied by an acceptable update from your medical/health practitioner” (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2020). For students enrolled in a four-year undergraduate program, this may require them to attend additional medical appointments to obtain repetitive documentation previously supplied to universities. For several of the students in this study, their disability was diagnosed a long time ago (and is largely stable, therefore, not requiring regular specialist medical appointments). As a result, they did not possess diagnosis letters or documentation prepared within the required ACER timeframes. Whilst additional medical documentation and evidence is needed in order to support an application for reasonable adjustment, consideration of financial costs and the additional time burden incurred by students to obtain these is a further complication in their testing experience. This could be alleviated by lengthening the time of validity in which medical documentation for students with disability/medical conditions have from 1 year to 5 years in line with the documentation validity for students with learning disabilities.

Adjustments are also only available to students who have a medical condition or disability. Therefore, students who have cultural requirements or require support because of their diverse backgrounds cannot access an adjustment opportunity. In the current climate of teacher shortages, some ITE stakeholders in the study expressed concern about the negative effects the implementation of LANTITE has had on attracting students to the profession, especially those from diverse backgrounds. Concerns relating to difficulties in future recruitment of Indigenous Australian teachers because of LANTITE were foreshadowed by van Gelderen (2017) although there has been no specific study to date exploring recruitment impacts due to LANTITE.

ITE students from diverse contexts typically have faced additional hurdles gaining admission, progressing, and graduating from ITE qualifications (Benson et al., 2014). As highlighted previously many students from diverse communities are first-in-family, bringing unique challenges requiring targeted support from higher education providers to support their transition, study and ultimate success as a graduate (King et al., 2019). Considerations for first-in-family participants could be offered by ACER in the form of suitable testing adjustments and support.

For some ITE students, who may experience social or financial hardship, accessing appropriate technology and equipment to undertake the tests can be problematic. Reliable internet connectivity can be a considerable stressor for students who live in remote or regional communities. For some of these students, further difficulties related to living in multi-generational housing arrangements, living in a share-house, or having young children in the home added to the challenge of sitting the test at home via remote proctor.

Students from diverse communities are disproportionally overrepresented as being first-in-family and may have further family pressures and cultural expectations to successfully perform the first time. This performance pressure can be created by the expectation of being and becoming a positive role model or ‘slipstreaming’ within their communities (Wainwright & Watts, 2021). When failure or obstacles are encountered, it is not only the student who experiences the failure, but often the whole family or community who share in the experience. One student who had additional pressures of having received a scholarship and an offer of employment, was unable to pass LANTITE. This scenario created a situation of disappointment and conflict with her family and community. Further, the student experienced feelings of shame in not having lived up to the course requirements and community expectations.

Implications

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing highlight the importance of having common principles and guidelines when responding to test-taker characteristics. This however should be balanced with sensitive and individual characteristics. If reasonable adjustments are not being made for individual need, then the validity of the test-score could be compromised (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.), 2014). The application of reasonable adjustment with respect to LANTITE focuses on disability and health related needs (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2020). However, considerations for students who have cultural or socio-economic considerations are not factored in to the LANTITE testing adjustments.

Both ITE stakeholders and students in this study identified concerns relating to students from backgrounds where EALD and/or Indigenous Australian students from within these communities can have quite different, but specific needs. As described by Anastasia, “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students [from remote communities] have told me, the process of going and sitting in the testing centres is quite daunting for them.” Consideration of culturally appropriate adjustments or the provision of additional time in the testing environment may result in students being able to demonstrate their performance against the standards more accurately. Consideration could be given to offering a different testing process or specific support to these students as it may assist their success, for example for some First Nations peoples, an oral assessment component may be more appropriate as this may allow the student to provide the cultural context in their response (Johnston, 2010). Some of the tensions related to adjustment could potentially be eliminated through the introduction of principles related to Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in higher education (Cumming & Rose, 2022) which also has the potential to benefit the wider community (Edwards et al., 2022) specifically in the areas of representation, action and expression (CAST, 2022).

Finally, many of the teacher educators in this study have been firm in their advocacy for students, particularly those from diverse backgrounds undertaking LANTITE. ITE stakeholders in this study described the additional support they offer to students from diverse backgrounds, in some cases, is deemed to be against university policy. Whilst devolving responsibility to universities for test administration is problematic in terms of funding and resourcing, the precedent for this devolved responsibility exists with other aspects nationally mandated course requirements including teacher performance assessments (TPAs) and pre-entry screening and selection requirements (Australian Institute for Teaching and Learning, 2016).

As the climate of teacher shortage intensifies both globally and in Australia, and the diversity of school populations flourishes, unintended barriers to progression and completion of ITE programs should be closely monitored to ensure teacher diversity is not adversely impacted. Future research could specifically explore LANTITE’s impact on teacher diversity or its impact on prospective students considering a career in teaching.