Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs

  • Wendy BoydEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Education book series (BRIEFSEDUCAT)


The goal of early childhood teacher (ECT) programs is to prepare graduates for teaching in early childhood centres. Within Australia, there are multiple approaches to early childhood teacher programs governed by policy, regulatory systems and universities. While the optimal structure of an ECT program favoured by academics in this study for teaching early childhood was the birth to 5 degree because it focused on preparing students to work in early childhood education and care (ECEC) centres, ECT programs were viewed to be ‘academically weak’. Comparisons between Australia and the Nordic countries’ views of the optimal structure were that the Nordic countries favoured a focused ECT program and resisted the input of primary education in their programs. The essential and desirable components of an optimal model of an ECT program Australian and Nordic academics were not content that focused upon the roles and responsibilities of early childhood teachers, but also a focus on EC teachers being professional. Early childhood teachers in the optimal model for the ECT program are positioned as committed professionals who engage in critical reflection on policy, philosophy and practice, and have dispositions to enact early childhood teaching, were viewed as essential. This view should be evident to all students within the ECT program.


  1. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), (2018). National quality standard. Retrieved from
  2. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019). Qualifications assessment guidelines for organization applications. Retrieved from
  3. Australian Curriculum (2019). Primary curriculum. Retrieved from
  4. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2019). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from
  5. Be You. (2019). Mental health in education initiative. Retrieved from
  6. Boyd, W., & Newman, L. (2019). Primary + early childhood = chalk and cheese? Tensions in undertaking an early childhood/primary education degree. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 4–13. Scholar
  7. Boyd, W., Fenech, M., Mahony, L., Wong, S., Warren, J., Lee, I-F., & Cheeseman, S. (2020) Employers’ perspectives of how well prepared early childhood teacher graduates are to teach in early childhood education and care services. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood (In press).Google Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teaching education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Department of Education. (2020). Support for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Retrieved from
  10. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace relations (DEEWR). (2009). The early years learning framework. Bardon, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  11. Eurydice. (2018a). Initial education for teachers working in early childhood and school education: Finland. Retrieved from
  12. Eurydice. (2018b). Teaching and learning in pre-primary education. Retrieved from
  13. Fenech, M. (2019). Where to for the registration of early childhood teachers? Retrieved from
  14. Fonseca-Chacana, J. (2019). Making teacher dispositions explicit: A participatory approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 266–276.Google Scholar
  15. Gibson, M., McFadden, A., & Zollo, L. (2018). Discursive considerations of child care professional experience in early childhood teacher education: Contingencies and tensions from teacher educators. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29(4), 293–311. Scholar
  16. Halpern, R. (2013). Tying early childhood education more closely to schooling: promise, perils and practical problems. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  17. Kaga. (2018). The relationships between early childhood and primary education in France and Sweden. In L. Miller, C. Cameron, C. Dalli, & N. Barbour (Eds). The Sage handbook of early childhood policy. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Kagan, S. L., & Roth, J. (2017). Transforming early childhood systems for future generations: Obligations and opportunities. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(2), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LiBetti, A. (2018). Let the research show: Developing the research to improve early childhood teacher preparation. Retrieved from
  20. Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). Framework plan for kindergartens. Retrieved from
  21. Nelson, P. J. (2015). Intelligent dispositions: Dewey, habits and inquiry in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). (2017). Starting strong 2017. Retrieved from
  23. Pascoe, S., & Brennan, D. (2017). Lifting our game: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools through early childhood interventions. Melbourne: Three’s a crowd.Google Scholar
  24. Productivity Commission. (2011). Early childhood development workforce. Retrieved from
  25. Tatto, M., Richmond, G., & Andrews, D. (2016). The research we need in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wright, J. (2003). Poststructuralist methodologies—The body, schooling and health. In J. Evans, B. Davies, & J. Wright, (eds.), Body knowledge and control. Studies in the sociology of physical education and health (pp. 34–59). Routledge: London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia

Personalised recommendations