Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Chapters 1 and 2 highlighted that public policy in Australia requires ECEC centres to employ qualified early childhood teachers, or equivalent (ACECQA, 2019c); yet, there is little research that informs the optimal model for an ECT degree/program. Well-researched models that comprehensively prepare graduates for teaching in early childhood education do not exist (LiBetti, 2018). Decisions by policymakers and academics for the optimal design and delivery of early childhood teacher programs informed by robust research are needed. The need for this research is based upon past research that has identified that higher early childhood teacher qualifications are associated with better outcomes for children (Manning, Wong, Fleming, & Garvis, 2019); that staff with more professional experience training are likely to be emotionally satisfied and experience well-being in the workplace; and staff with higher salaries and effective collaboration with their colleagues are likely to have better staff-to-child interactions (OECD, 2018). Research has also detected that stakeholders within Australia are concerned about the quality of graduates’ early childhood teacher training, resulting in a perceived lack of preparedness of graduates for early childhood teaching (Boyd et al., In press; Pascoe & Brennan, 2017). The quality of the ECT program is linked to the structure, design, delivery and assessment of the program. The key features of an ECT program/degree include entry and admission into the program, structure of the program, content of the program, structure of professional experience, delivery of the program and assessment of the program. The optimal model of ECT programs is unknown warranting the need for this research into ECT programs.

Data Collection and Analysis for This Chapter

This chapter reviews the academics’ perspectives regarding the quality of their ECT program. Twenty-seven Australian academic program directors/course coordinators representing 70% of programs directors at Australian universities and five academics from three Nordic universities were interviewed. The interviews were conducted between September and December 2018. The 27 academics represented 40 Australian ECT programs. Perspectives from five academics were gathered from three Nordic universities—one each in Finland, Norway and Sweden, and comparisons made. The questions asked of the academics relevant to this chapter were:

  1. 1.

    How good do you think your early childhood teacher program is? Why? Can you explain your response?

  2. 2.

    What would you see as its strengths?

  3. 3.

    What would you see as the areas where improvement is required?

  4. 4.

    Can you please talk about the requirements for entry into your program?

The data was analysed using discourse analysis from Foucault’s thinking about the power and relationships, knowledge and truths.

The Quality of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Quality of early childhood teacher programs is a multi-dimensional concept that is ongoing and contextualised (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 2007); within this study, the ‘quality’ of the ECT program was interpreted to be associated with academics’ perspectives as to how good their ECT program was, especially with regard to the strengths of their ECT program. Four themes emerged as the key contributors to the quality of early childhood teaching programs. The themes identified were the

  • The strengths of the ECT programs were vast and included: the design and delivery of the program; the structure of the program; the feedback from students on the program; the innovations within the program; the expertise of academic colleagues; delivery mode; and university fiscal requirements.

  • The entry/admission into the early childhood teacher programs was varied across Australia and at times was felt to be inadequate as a result of pathway programs, that is, entering the ECT program via a Diploma. The Diploma was thought, by some academics, to be of questionable quality. Entry into programs in the Nordic countries included an examination, an aptitude test and an interview to assess students’ motivation and capability for study within the course. This aimed to identify those students committed to early childhood education.

  • The accreditation authorities influenced the design and structure of ECT programs.

  • The status of early childhood education in society was felt to diminish the quality of early childhood teacher programs and influenced students’ perceptions of ECEC.

Reasons for these themes included external influences, such as approval by the accreditation authorities, and internal factors, such as the structure, design and staffing of the early childhood teaching degree.

The Structure of the Programs

Within Australia, there are multiple pathways to study to be an early childhood teacher qualification. The ECT programs/degrees differ in many ways: differences include entry requirements; the content of the degree; the structure of the degree—studying an early childhood teaching program only or early childhood with primary teaching degree (termed ‘combined’); and the duration and structure of professional experience. The three models of ECT programs in Australia are to teach children aged from 6 weeks to 6 years (known as birth-5 years); or 6 weeks to 8 years (known as birth-8 years); or 6 weeks to 12 years (birth-12 years). If a graduate is qualified in the birth-8 or birth to 12 years’ degree, then they can teach in both early childhood settings (for children aged from birth to 5 years) and primary schools (for children aged from 5 to 12 years). Within the Nordic countries, the ECT programs are only for graduates to teach children aged from 9-12 months up to 7 years. Overall, the academic program directors favoured the birth-5 programs to train early childhood teachers, while the program considered to be of least quality was the birth-12 years’ program.

Fenech conducted an analysis of the 98 ECT programs offered across Australia in 2017—see Fig. 3.1. The offerings varied across jurisdictions. Birth-8 programs were most common in Tasmania, Queensland (QLD), South Australia (SA) and Western Australia (WA), while in New South Wales (NSW), Victoria (VIC), Northern Territory (NT) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT) predominantly offer birth-12 or birth-5 programs.

Fig. 3.1
figure 1

Early childhood ITE programs accredited by ACECQA, 2012–June 2017 (Fenech, 2017)

Full size image

At the time of data collection in late 2018, changes were evident to the structures of ECT programs—see Fig. 3.2. There were significant differences across the Australian jurisdictions in the structures of the programs:

Fig. 3.2
figure 2

NT = Northern Territory; WA = Western Australia; SA: South Australia; VIC = Victoria; QLD: Queensland; NSW/ACT = New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory

Distribution of programs in study (N = 40) (no data was available from Tasmania)

Full size image

  • Birth-5 years’ programs were offered in three states: New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (QLD) and Victoria (VIC);

  • Birth-8 years’ programs were offered in three states: QLD, South Australia (SA) and Western Australia (WA).

  • Birth-12 years’ programs were offered in four jurisdictions: Northern Territory (NT), NSW/ACT and Victoria (VIC).

Based on the data, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), NSW and Victoria mainly offered birth-5 and birth-12 years’ programs; while QLD, SA and WA offered predominantly birth-8 years’ programs—see Fig. 3.2. These results differed from Fenech’s (2017) analysis of programs published in 2017 in that there were no birth-8 programs in NSW nor Victoria; and no birth-12 programs in WA nor QLD. The change in NSW was because the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA), the state accrediting authority no longer accredits birth-8 years’ degrees and only birth-12 degrees. The academics’ responses suggested that the teacher accreditation authority in NSW NESA was a powerful influence in determining structures of early childhood teaching courses. The influence of accrediting authorities is discussed in greater detail below.

Entry into the Early Childhood Teacher Programs

There were multiple entry pathways across Australian universities into an early childhood teaching program: entry immediately after completing secondary school, entry via previous study and non-academic entry via past vocational experience. The most common entry pathway for undergraduate programs was via assessment from secondary schooling. The Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) (Universities Admissions Centre [UAC], 2019) is the score students achieve in the final year of secondary school. Accepted ATAR scores into the early childhood teacher degrees/programs varied across universities and ranged from 60 to 78 (out of a possible 100). In Queensland, the rating scale was an ‘Overall Position’ (OP), and OP entry was 14 on a scale of 0–25, which is equivalent to 56/100. For mature age students, entry could be via non-academic pathways such as past study and/or work experience with written statements indicating their desire to enter the course and outlining reasons. Interviews were held at some universities to determine the applicant’s motivation for entering the course; however, academics said they could not financially afford to undertake interviews although they felt that this would be beneficial to identify the students’ motivations for early childhood teaching.

Entry into an early childhood teaching degree (birth-5 years) across most universities had a lower ATAR level (more than or equal to 56%) than a primary degree program (5–12 years) (more than or equal to 70%). Academics had witnessed students coming into the early childhood teaching degree so that they could move into the primary degree in their second year of study. Most academics who ran a combined early childhood primary degree reported that most of the students came into the program to work in primary schools. This aligns with previous findings that investigated students’ preferred employment options following their graduation. Most students studying in a combined degree of early childhood and primary teaching program prefer to work in primary schools (Ailwood & Boyd, 2007; Boyd & Newman, 2019; Bretherton, 2010; Liu & Boyd, 2018; Thorpe, Boyd, Ailwood, & Brownlee, 2011). Using early childhood entry to gain access to a primary teaching degree not only occurred in Australia but also in Finland. To judge if students were motivated to study early childhood alone, the entry into the ECT program was based on an examination, an aptitude test followed by a group interview of seven to eight applicants. Applicants were judged on their interactions and perceived motivations within the group for suitability into the course. The group of applicants was given a task, and academics judged their interactional abilities, that is, how the students listened to each other, worked in the group and what was their motivation. One of the reasons for identifying motivations was that some students tried to use the ECT program to gain access into the primary degree:

We have had that kind of problem that many of our students who have got the place to study in our early education have the motivation that they would like to go to primary school education. They try to find out how to get the place in primary school teacher training. So, we try to figure out the motivation, that do you really want to come to early education? (Finnish academic)

Entry via the Diploma of ECEC

In Australia, courses are classified according to the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) (Australian Qualifications Framework, 2013). The Diploma of Early Childhood Education, 2 years of full-time study, is classified as AQF level 5 and a degree is AQF level 7. Postgraduate degrees include the Graduate Diploma which is AQF level 8, and Masters AQF level 9.

Then enter the Diploma AQF level 5:

to qualify, individuals who apply integrated technical and theoretical concepts in a broad range of contexts to undertake advanced skilled or paraprofessional work and as a pathway for further learning (AQF, 2013, p. 38).

A degree, which is AQF level 7, is described as:

to qualify individuals who apply a broad and coherent body of knowledge in a range of contexts to undertake professional work and as a pathway for further learning (AQF, 2013, p. 47).

Usually, applicants with a Diploma of ECEC were granted entry, and credit, or advanced standing, into the ECT degree. Universities have discretionary powers for granting of credit. Some universities gave no credit for having studied a Diploma in ECEC, while others gave up to 2 years out of 4, for a degree, that is 50% credit. Australian academics had been told by students that they had ‘shopped around’ to find the university that would provide them with the most credit into the degree. Students compared the duration and cost of degrees at different universities to minimise the expense of the degree, and length of time before completion. For example, if a student received 1 years’ credit for having a Diploma at one university compared to none at another, then this was a saving of 2 years and associated cost reduction for the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) loan (StudyAssist, 2019). The HECS is a living allowance loan for students to study. Such actions work in duplicitous ways: it saves the university student money to study for a shorter time; it is likely to boost enrolments for the university, however, at what cost for the preparedness, and associated quality of the early childhood teaching program? Does the student who shops around and finds optimal credit for the degree benefit? Does the allocation of up to 2 years’ advanced standing trade-off the quality of the program in any way?

In three programs, academics had implemented a structural decision to build the birth-5 years’ degree in having successfully completed the Diploma of ECEC. This was viewed as a strength of the ECT program by these academics as it provided a clear pathway of study. But entry via the Diploma required additional support to study at the required academic level and students struggled to work at the AQF level 7 of study and required additional support. Often there was no funding to do support these students: One academic said that her university provided support through a ‘gateway unit’ that delivered academic writing and professional identity support to transition from the Diploma to the teaching degree.

Some academics felt that the quality of the Diploma of ECEC had deteriorated as an entry into the ECT degree and felt that they needed to interview each applicant to judge their capability for studying the degree. The deterioration of the quality of the Diploma was felt to have occurred as a result of the privatisation to teach the Diploma.

English Language Standards for Entry

To obtain entry, applicants had to be proficient in English. Two university academics explained that students who had English as a second language struggled with study in the program, even though the students had passed the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test (2019) at the required level. International students were also identified as requiring more support after successful entry; not just for academic support, but also emotional support. They were away from their family and friends in a culture different from their own. To be successful in their studies in Australia, these students needed to be supported in many ways.

The Quality of Teachers: Entry Changes

Entry into a primary teaching degree changed in 2015 owing to Australia’s declining ranking in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2018). To address this decline, changes were made to entry requirements into teacher education degrees to improve the quality of teachers (Nuttall, 2018). It is unclear if this change has been effective in improving Australia’s ranking in education internationally. The changes raised the benchmark for entry into any primary program. Student admissions had reduced as a result of these changes—which was a financial concern for universities. To counteract these entry requirements, universities had established a first-year ‘foundation’ year of study in a generic arts degree. Upon successful completion of the first year, students can transfer into the teacher education program for the next 3 years, thus graduating as a 4-year teacher.

The academics in the study complained that the first-year student cohort had increased in size as students across all teacher education programs, early childhood, primary and secondary students, were in the first-year Arts degree, plus Arts students. The size of the first-year group of students was greatly increased which academics viewed negatively: we have lost the idea of a cohort, and academics felt that students were becoming generalists due to these changes. Australian academics, responsible for the birth-12 years’ programs, felt that the structure of the degrees had brought together too many students in the first year, minimising the opportunity for learning communities to be established. As a result of studying the generic degree in the first year, the 4-year teaching degree had become just 3 years of studying education, and resulted in an overfull program, as one academic from a birth-12 program explained: we have to squeeze everything of an educational nature into the 3 years. So, in an effort to ‘improve’ the quality of teachers undertaken by the Departments of Education, universities had responded by changing the structure of the degree so that enrolments did not decline. The universities took action to ensure their financial well-being as they responded to declining enrolments as a result of an external authority changing the entry requirements.

Nordic countries experienced similar fiscal constraints that influenced the size of the student cohort. The course in Norway was structured with a large cohort of students in the same core units in the first 2 years of the 3-year degree. In the third year, the students split into specialisation areas. The academics felt that their relations with students were less familiar as there were no small groups in the first 2 years of study, and students had expressed concern about impersonal nature of the course. The academics expressed regret that they were unable to give students more time and that owing to the larger intake of students they do not know them as well. As one Norwegian academic stated:

Many years ago, I worked with a group of 30 students and I followed them for three years. Then I could really give this kind of mentoring. You’d get to know the students. Now there are 110 students per year. Now when students come to me, they say, I’m one of your students I don’t think you know me.

This change was explained as being due to the fiscal requirements of the university:

It’s the economy in it. It depends on the money and the funding how many hours we can teach…. the government gives more money to train primary teachers than our teachers. There is no reason for that, but they really get more funding because when they reviewed the program, they said they were worried about the quality of the primary and secondary programs. There is no reason other than status and tradition and thinking school is important. We are working on getting more funding for early childhood.

There was tension relating to the struggle between offering quality support to students and the university’s fiscal constraints. Furthermore, this comment indicates the dominance of primary and secondary education when compared to ECEC. It is well known that the early years of a child’s life has significant impact upon lifelong outcomes, and that the qualifications of the EC teachers impact the child’s learning environment; yet here we see a concerted effort to protect the tradition of primary education.

Professional Experience and Quality

Professional experience was viewed as providing a quality early childhood program. However, there was a wide variation in the number of days students were required to complete. Across the combined birth-8 and birth-12 years’ degrees, some academics thought there was inadequate time in early childhood professional experience owing to the requirements for days in primary educational settings. Concern centred on the perception that there was not enough time for students to develop competence or clear understanding in both settings, and that students were not being well supervised on practicum. One academic stated that:

Universities have stepped away from monitoring students on professional experience for cost effectiveness (Academic birth-five).

The quality of early childhood settings for professional experience was raised as an issue for the quality of the ECT course. There are just over 20% of early childhood settings in Australia not meeting the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2019b) so finding quality compliant settings for students to complete their professional experience was a challenge. Chapter 5 fully addresses the nuances of professional experience across the universities in the study.

Student and Community Approval

Favourable feedback from students and the local early childhood community was cited as an indicator of the quality of the program. Feedback indicated that the university course was meeting the goal of preparing graduates for the job of teaching in early childhood education with the rate of employment of graduates of the program being high. Two academics said that their program was of good quality because it had clear purpose and vision. As one of these stated:

What we do purposefully is actually help our pre-service teachers to think about their own teaching philosophy, their vision, their values, their beliefs and then how that filters into their pedagogy and practice… We don’t want to have this factory of telling and romanticizing about what early childhood teaching should look like and should involve… When they came out as early career teachers their colleagues from other universities were less confident and had a romantic view of what early childhood should be (Academic birth-8).

Innovation and Social Justice of the Program

The majority of academics responsible for birth-12 programs regarded their program as superficial, weak or watered down. Other academics responsible for birth to 5, or birth to 8 programs viewed their program as comprehensive, cutting edge, unique, diverse, inclusive and culturally sound. Programs that had content based on current early childhood practice and that was informed by research were viewed as innovative and providing rich learning for the students. As one academic stated:

We try and build a social justice disposition in our students, so we start that from the very first unit of study. Philosophy is worked into all of our units, but we also have very specific units on social justice. Also, we try to build that leadership disposition. I’m really proud of our program, I really like it. I think it’s much stronger than the previous version that we had (Academic birth-5).

The key areas where content was deemed to be lacking were Indigenous studies in early childhood; arts and music; educating and caring for infants and toddlers; and opportunities for practice-based. Two academics felt that early childhood teaching degrees would be improved if they were interdisciplinary, that is, they included content about health, speech, physiotherapy, nutrition, arts and social work.

The Finnish government had responded to a need for improvements in the early childhood field. At the time of interview, the intake had increased to 140 students, where the intake had been 80 students per annum. This increase had arisen as a result of the identified shortage of EC teachers. The academic explained that the re-structure of roles of the teacher and the nurses in the nursery were changing which she thought would enhance the quality of the ECT program:

The nursery nurse did very much the same kind of things as teachers…we really have to know and be aware of what is the role of the teacher and what is the role of the nursery nurse because their training is different, teachers train in universities…..it is the highest level in Finland…the teacher is the one who is responsible for pedagogy and everybody should know that. That has been on big discussion here in Finland. There has to be teacher leadership.

It contrasted markedly with Australia where university places were capped even though there was a shortage of early childhood teachers, and more EC teachers were required in 2023 (ACECQA, 2019a).

The Expertise of Fellow Academics

The expertise of the academics who taught into the ECT program had mixed views: some viewed their colleagues’ expertise as a strength, others as a weakness of the program. Academics who had experience teaching children from birth to 5 years, who were specialists, researchers and passionate about early education, were viewed as providing a quality program for the students. These academics with expertise in ECEC teaching wove play, children’s learning and development, and early childhood curriculum into the program. Academics who were research-active and making a strong contribution to early childhood education contributed to the quality of the degree. Such academics were good advocates for the programs. As one academic explained:

Our strengths are in our staff because we have specialised early childhood staff from birth to eight, who have worked across a range of settings in different states. We also all conduct research, so I see that as a huge (bonus)- we have a research centre within our program, and I think that’s one of our strengths. So, we are actually keeping contemporary and that goes back into our content (Academic birth-8)

Three academics felt that the birth-12 years’ course was weak because there were insufficient staff to teach into the early childhood component of the course; and fellow academics did not understand ECEC yet were required to teach into the program. These programs encompassed two curriculum areas: The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (DEEWR, 2009) for early childhood settings and the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, 2019). There was a lack of academics who understood early childhood pedagogy as one academic stated in exasperation:

So, you’re having arguments about content because they don’t understand the pedagogy and practices of early childhood education…It’s really tough because we are marginalised in education and misunderstood…it’s exhausting (Academic birth-12).

Many academics felt that they and their early childhood colleagues were marginalised, or forgotten, within the school/faculty where they worked. Early childhood academics felt that they had to be strong advocates to ensure that early childhood education was not overlooked in course content decision-making. Concern was expressed about the high number of casual academics teaching into the early childhood teaching degree.

Delivery of the Course

The delivery of the mode of study was a moot point for the quality of the programs. Some academics viewed online delivery as a strength because it suited students working in the field as they studied. Online learning provided students the flexibility regarding when and where they chose to do their study. Academics acknowledged that online pedagogy was a necessary space to move into; however, five academics raised this as an area where they felt challenged to teach effectively. Most academics said they preferred face-to-face teaching as relationships could be established with the students to support student learning. Face-to-face teaching and learning was viewed as a strength because it built learning communities of students.

However, having to attend face to face came at a cost for some universities as students needed to make a time commitment to attend class. For example, two universities had an 80–90% compulsory attendance rate, respectively, and for students who engaged in full-time paid work, it was not possible for them to attend classes, so they sought an alternative university. The Finnish academics thought that their degree needed to include more online teaching and use digital learning with students. The degree currently had a 70% face-to-face attendance requirement. This meant that students must attend 70% of classes. She said that:

I think we have had maybe too much face to face learning, and it is no use to do that because digital learning environment is just as good. We really have had so much learning face to face and I think it is a kind of waste… The students have to come here to the university campus and also, they get tired and we have had traditional timetable of two hours for one course and then two hours for the next one. It is not the content; it is the way we do it.

This contrasts markedly with many Australian academics who thought that the ECT programs should have more face-to-face teaching. One Australian academic stated that in her birth-5 course there was a 90% attendance requirement and found that face-to-face attendance contributed to the: whole learning experience for the students. In both the Finnish and the Australian universities, there were approximately 30 students in the class. The Australian academic said:

We get to know our students really, really well. There’s more scope to build a learning community (Australian academic birth-five).

University Fiscal Requirements

The need for universities to meet fiscal requirements was viewed as a constant tension which challenged the quality of the early childhood teaching program. Academics explained that there were attempts to water down the course for affordability reasons, for example, by cutting back on professional experience supervision; lowering of entry requirements; and professional experience being done in a students’ workplace which made it cost-effective for the university. Decisions such as these were viewed as weakening the integrity of the program and influencing the quality of the experience for students. This demonstrates the tension of meeting economic imperatives for the university, while maintaining integrity of the ECT courses. Meeting university economic goals, while placing the quality of the early childhood teacher courses at risk, indicates the lack of power that program directors had to deliver a quality program.

Assessment and Accreditation of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs

A key process in the design of an early childhood teaching program in Australia was for the program to be assessed and accredited. Early childhood teacher programs are required to be assessed and accredited by ACECQA, and if they contain primary teaching also by the state accrediting authority (for primary schools), for example, NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA). Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) is the national authority that accredits all early childhood teacher programs, while for combined early childhood/primary teacher programs each state/territory accrediting authority, under the guidance of AITSL, accredits the primary component of the program. If the program is not approved, then the graduates from the course are not recognised as teachers. ACECQA (2019c) provides an outline for accreditation of the required course content for early childhood teacher programs; however, there is little detail about the duration of study in the program. Across Australia the duration of study varies according to the status of the program: an early childhood teacher undergraduate degree is 3 or 4 years long, while a postgraduate degree such as a Graduate Diploma of Education (Early Childhood) or the Master of Teaching (Early Childhood) is 1 to 2 years of full-time study following an undergraduate degree. Meeting the external accrediting authority’s approval was viewed as a strength and essential for the conduct of the course at university by some academics. Some academics felt that the ACECQA accredited degree was good because graduates could become registered early childhood teachers, in the states of NSW and Victoria. This was thought to support the status of early childhood teachers in the profession. Contradictorily, the academics responsible for the birth-12 years’ degree viewed the accreditation by the state/territory accrediting authority as a weakness for the provision of a good quality ECT degree. Academics expressed a high level of frustration centred on the quantity of primary education required in the degree compared to ECEC content. It was felt that the primary education content overshadowed early childhood education to meet the requirements of the accreditation authority, and there was too little early childhood education content in the degree. Many academics had advocated for more early childhood units of study within their birth-12 years’ degrees but had been unsuccessful or had made minor gains—such as one extra unit in the 32 unit degree. Academics felt pressure both internally and externally to abide by primary accreditation authorities’ decisions, such as having few early childhood units in their degree, or more days in primary practicum placements, as the primary education units dominated the birth-12 degree. Across the combined birth-12 years’ degrees, the number of early childhood educational units for children aged birth-5 years ranged from 3 (9%) to 19 (59%) units, out of possible 32 units. The academics affected by the low number of EC units expressed concern and frustration as one academic stated:

I’m so frustrated at the difficulty to actually weave early childhood content in the birth-12 program and to meet (the state accrediting authority’s) requirements…we have five standalone early childhood units and that really isn’t enough. It’s very difficult to see how I can actually increase that given (the state accrediting authority’s) continuing demands for specialisations and curriculum (Academic birth-12).

The academics’ frustration, and lack of agency, highlighted the discourse of power present in the design of a quality ECT program. The accrediting authority for early childhood education, ACECQA, and the accrediting authorities for the primary component of the combined early childhood primary degree were deemed to be forcing out early childhood content in favour of primary content. The accreditation authorities’ influence was significant having created rules and truths that affected the program directors’ autonomy in the development of early childhood teacher programs.

Some academics recognised that the birth-12 years’ degree was as vocationally attractive for students as there were more career opportunities associated with studying a combined degree. However, many academics described the birth-12 program as weak or watered down. The course had too much primary content, and in the academics’ words it is content overloaded, which led to superficial learning, it is tokenistic, it is too school heavy and entailed hothousing of students. Academics felt that teaching time had been eroded as a result of the combined degrees. It was felt that it was difficult for students to learn the content of both teaching in early childhood and primary education as the two pedagogical and philosophical approaches to teaching were different. This aligns with previous findings that students (Boyd & Newman, 2019) and early childhood employers (Boyd et al.,  In press) think that the combined degree is unsuitable to be a proficient early childhood teacher.

Another concern was that in Queensland it was possible to become an early childhood teacher if you are qualified as a primary school teacher and then complete the Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care (2019). These graduates had only studied early childhood education at AQF level 5, not AQF level 7. As one Academic birth-12 stated:

How is it possible to be a university qualified early childhood teacher when you have never studied early childhood at university, only primary teaching?

Positioning early childhood teacher training as being unnecessary for study at university highlights how early childhood education is not considered to be as important as primary teacher training. Bringing a Foucauldian lens to this, one must ask how can this ‘truth’ be acceptable to the early childhood teaching accrediting authority? The discourse that primary education is dominant does not bode well for good quality early childhood teacher programs when ECTs are trained in early childhood primary combined degrees.

In the Nordic countries, early childhood teacher programs were evaluated and reviewed by a panel of members from other universities. A report is then written about the overall program. The program has to be oriented to preschool. What is actually in the program differs a lot across Sweden and this is allowed. Norway is similar to Sweden except for the first 2 years of the program follow the requirements of the Ministry of Education and Research (2017). In Finland, early childhood teacher programs are assessed and evaluated by the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre that have core values of trustworthiness of the evaluation; independence; openness and boldness—to be open the scrutiny of the public (Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, 2019).

There were no combined degrees in the Nordic countries, so the inclusion of primary within the early childhood degree did not present as a problem. In spite of this, the Norwegian academics had resisted an attempt for the early childhood teaching degree to be combined with primary teaching. The Norwegian academics explained that they felt a lack of respect afforded to early childhood teachers by primary school teachers. This perception was based on the experience of the academics. They had offered to assist primary education to better understand children from a strength’s based perspective; however, the academics felt that primary teachers continued to work from a deficit view of children. It was apparent to the Norwegian academics that when children started school the primary teachers wanted to know about the child’s difficulties, not the strengths of the child. Another area of concern for the academics was a requirement for play-based learning in the lower primary class. Primary school teachers were reluctant to implement play in the program. The academics had offered to conduct lectures on play, but the primary teachers had declined saying that they knew about that. The Norwegian academics talked about how they had decided not to have a combined birth-12 degree. There had been discussion whether to include primary education or not:

It was very clear that we should not have this, if you have one to 12 years, it is the primary school dictates what is happening in my university. It’s a kind of power in status (Academic, Norwegian University).

The power of primary education’s dominance was evident with the Norwegian academics resisting the inclusion of primary education within the early childhood teaching program. In the USA, Halpern (2013) and, in Europe, Oberheumer (2011) have warned against including primary with early childhood teacher training owing to its dominance. Halpern advocates for not combining early childhood and primary education (2013). There is often pressure to include curriculum from primary school in the early childhood education, termed ‘pushdown curriculum’ and ‘schoolification of early childhood’ (OECD, 2017). It is considered unsatisfactory as it relies on a different pedagogical approach to teaching to early childhood teaching. So, it is not only in Australia that the regime of truth that primary education is powerful.

The Status of the Early Childhood Profession

The low status of the early childhood profession was apparent in the academics’ perspectives about their ECT programs. The low pay of EC teacher graduates and poor work conditions of early childhood teachers compared to primary school teacher counterparts were an area of concern for academics. Because Australian primary school teachers were paid up to 20% more than early childhood teachers (on average) when students graduated with a birth-8 or birth-12 degree than they were more likely to seek employment in primary education. Losing good graduates in primary education was considered a loss for Australian children who benefit from good teaching. If students studied a birth-5 program, then employment options were focused only on early childhood. While some universities enjoyed enrolments that satisfied the fiscal goals of the university, there were concerns that they found it difficult to advocate students to work in early childhood education as a result of the perceived low status of EC teachers with the low pay and poor working conditions. One academic explained that:

Early childhood is recognised within COAG (Council of Australian Governments) as a sector and it is an approach to curriculum, learning, and teaching with young children. It is a conceptual tradition which implies a set of theories and understandings that teachers need (Academic birth-8).

Within Australia, the significance of the early years is recognised in government policy, yet the academics’ experience of financial support to provide a good quality program was of concern by many program directors. Inadequate resources to provide good quality early childhood teacher programs were contributing to the ongoing low status of early childhood education. It is important that early childhood teacher programs are well resourced and subject to scrutiny to ensure the quality of the program (Nuttall, 2018). However, this was not the experience of many academics.

In Finland, the status of early childhood education was undergoing change; however, academics explained how that status was perceived differently within society and their university. Discussions in Finnish society had led to early childhood education being better understood resulting in improved standing in society. As she stated:

Early education is very valued in society. It has been a long way, but I think there is so much discussion and debate in society nowadays concerning early education that it is kind of understood that it is an important part of the general education system. So, education doesn’t start when the child goes to primary school. Parents know how important early education is and there is also scientific knowledge of what early education means

The Nordic countries have a focus on lifelong education (Boström et al., 2017), with a focus on civil rights, solidarity, equity and equality. While the status of early education was thought to be increasing owing to it being better understood throughout society, early childhood teaching in Finland and Norway still had lower status than primary teaching. There were attempts to bring the ECTs to pay in parity with primary teachers; however, EC teachers were paid 23% less than primary teachers. Primary teachers have a Master qualification in Finland which was not yet required for EC teachers but would be by 2030. Further discrepancies between early education and primary education were discussed during the interviews.

Summary

The most favourable program structure for early childhood teacher education was the birth-5 program as it focused solely on teaching children aged from birth-5 and did not include the need for students to learn how to be a primary school teacher as well. Including primary teaching within the ECT program was viewed by the majority of participants as reducing the quality of the early childhood teaching course—the increased content and professional experience requirements of primary education diminished the early childhood content and pedagogy. Additionally, the accreditation authorities’ power over the structure and content of the combined degrees was thought to be the disadvantage of the EC teaching component of these courses. This finding aligns with findings from Europe (Oberheumer, 2011; OECD, 2017) and the USA (Halpern, 2013).

The academics in this study recognised the inconsistencies in entry requirements into an early childhood teaching degree across Australia. Across universities, there was a wide range of ATAR scores, or different levels of credit given for past study for entry into the ECT program; as one academic stated: there should be consistent benchmarks nationally in terms of entry into these programs. For courses that included primary teaching entry requirements had changed to respond to the decline in educational attainment compared to other countries. The course structures had been altered to make entry into the courses more difficult. The rationale being for this was to improve the quality of teachers and thereby improve the educational attainments of students on the PISA scores (2018).

The ECT program was viewed as being of financial benefit to the school and university; however, the program was often overlooked/forgotten in school business decisions. The academics felt that colleagues who had qualifications and experience in ECT were more effective teachers for students than those academics without qualifications/experience in the birth-5 years area. Across universities, early childhood academics made comments on feeling marginalised within their schools. As ECEC suffered low status in society (Press, Wong, & Gibson, 2015) so too was this the situation in universities, with fellow academics making comments as to why a degree is required to teach ECEC ‘as it is only babysitting’. The low status of being an early childhood teacher was key problems that need addressing to enhance the quality of ECT programs.