AITSL | History and Scope of Advice on Updating Teacher Standards

Question

Senator KOVACIC: When did AITSL last advise the minister that the teacher standards needed updating? Mr Pinchas: August of last year ministers agreed in principle to a regular review cycle for our standards and frameworks, and that included us identifying the teacher standards needed. They hadn't been reviewed since first endorsed in 2010. Senator KOVACIC: How often between 2010 and August 2025 did AITSL advise the minister that teacher standards needed to be updated? Mr Bullard: We might take that on notice because of the time span of that. I know we have given evidence before the committee previously that there were a number of occasions over the course of those 15 or so years where it was brought to either the minister's attention or, collectively, ministers. If we take that on notice, we can give you the number of times. Senator KOVACIC: Are you able to provide information on where those barriers were in updating the standards, if you have that at hand, when you provide that on notice? In addition, if you drew attention to the standards needing to be updated, why weren't they proposed to be updated until last year? Mr Bullard: I think that would be a matter of opinion that we would be asked to be providing. Senator KOVACIC: It's not a data collection point you would keep? Mr Bullard: It's not going forward and saying, 'What do you think?' 'We think no for these reasons.' Senator KOVACIC: It could have been that states and territories declined or that these state and territories agreed and those ones declined. I wasn't seeking an opinion-more if there was any factual basis. If you have it, great; If you don't, I accept that. Mr Pinchas: I think there is information of what advice we've provided and the outcome of that advice. Senator KOVACIC: Would you be able to then tell me the scope of the review that has now been agreed to? Mr Pinchas: In terms of process for the review and what ministers agreed to in April we have a governance stream of work establishing a project reference group, we have professional panels and we'll utilise our existing committees. There's an evidence input stream of work. That will be a literature review, environmental scan, expert advice, a consultation survey and focus groups. From there we'll generate a discussion paper which will go out to the profession for submissions, as well as a survey to make sure the teaching profession can engage readily with it. Concurrent to that work we'll also undertake an impact assessment, because part of the reason so many stakeholders are invested in the standards is that they are heavily embedded in processes such as registration, ITE accreditation and the like. That impact assessment will give us a good sense and advice to ministers on the costs for any changes and benefits and then a final report with recommendations that won't be revisions to the standards themselves but recommendations of directions with some options to which, subject to ministers agreement, we'll then go away and make any revisions. Senator KOVACIC: Are you able to table the scoped review or perhaps provide that on notice to us? Mr Pinchas: I think so, looking over to Meg-yes. ..... Senator KOVACIC: Do you have concerns in relation to the delays in improving teacher standards having an impact on teachers, in particular, as it relates to classroom behaviour, which then impacts academic performance and, in the case of antisemitism, social cohesion? Mr Bullard: Is your question whether, in the opinion of AITSL, the delay has had a negative impact on- Senator KOVACIC: Correct-whether it makes it harder and it's more problematic. Has the delay contributed to that? Mr Bullard: The feedback to date has been around the specificity, so one of the elements has been the specificity of the standards to guide contemporary practice. But of course in the absence of that specificity states, territories, systems and sectors have been able to attend to a broad range of matters within their own context. The standards haven't stood in the way of those things occurring, but they may not have amplified the importance of those things occurring, if that makes sense? Senator KOVACIC: It does. This question goes to the evidence that you've given already, but I'm trying to get a picture of how we are where we are. AITSL has often said that your energy has gone into middle-leader standards and other funded projects. Where primarily has the decision, or have the decisions, come from that the 15-year old teacher standards could wait? Is it just a victim of circumstance, or was there-you've given advice over time. Was that advice over time to change those standards? You note that you were given responses and you recorded those responses. What I'm trying to glean is why we've waited. Can you shed any light on that? Mr Bullard: The institute is the steward of those standards on behalf of ministers. Because they are so embedded in every element of systems, sectors, states and territories, including registration standards and including the ITE accreditation standards, we couldn't unilaterally move to update those standards without the ministers agreeing. So, over a period of time, as you have noted, there have been moves by AITSL and its board to make representations to ministers for those standards to be updated. For whatever reason, that hasn't been agreed. But in terms of the energy that the company is putting to other standards such as middle leaders that's because the national standards did require agreement from all ministers. Senator KOVACIC: Are you able to table those representations? Is that possible to do, or can you provide them on notice? Mr Pinchas: It would be part of that previous question.

Answer

Please see the attached PDF.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000684.pdf (opens in a new tab)