Recently, some commentators - including Dr Fiona Mueller, Dr Kevin Donnelly, and Dr Deidre Clary - have claimed that universities are failing to adequately prepare new teachers.

They argue that ITE is bogged down in theory, lacks practical classroom focus, and is distracted by ideology.

Their solution?

Shift teacher training out of universities and into specialised institutes, similar to Singapore’s model.

It’s a tidy narrative, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Complexity beyond the classroom

Certainly, there’s room to strengthen teacher preparation in Australia. Many graduates feel underprepared in their first classrooms. But pinning the blame solely on universities oversimplifies a complex issue.

Treating teacher education as a purely technical trade, rather than a professional qualification, risks undermining the profession itself.

In fact, the push to move ITE away from universities echoes a broader trend of deprofessionalising teaching - a hallmark of neoliberal reforms.

Criticism that ITE is “too theoretical” isn’t new; it’s been circulating for decades. What’s often overlooked is that many universities have already responded to these concerns.

Modern ITE programs typically include extensive supervised placements (I completed 12 weeks myself in the era of unpaid placements), incorporate evidence-based strategies like explicit instruction, and increasingly collaborate with schools to design practical learning experiences.

Some of the most effective models - such as clinical teacher education - demonstrate the benefits of strong partnerships between universities and schools.

Clinical models: bridging theory and practice

Clinical teacher education, while university-based, is deeply rooted in real classroom practice. For example, the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Education integrates rigorous coursework with ongoing, mentored teaching in partner schools.

Student teachers work alongside experienced educators in “teaching academies of professional practice,” allowing them to immediately apply theory, reflect on their progress, and build classroom skills from the outset.

This collaborative approach directly challenges the notion that universities are the problem.

Risks of a narrow approach

Of course, even clinical models have their limitations. But removing ITE from universities - institutions that are uniquely placed to bridge theory and practice - would likely create a narrow, scripted form of teacher training.

This risks producing teachers who follow rigid routines rather than adapting to the diverse realities of classrooms.

Pedagogy, not ideology

The so-called “ideological drift” in ITE is often just the presence of different pedagogical approaches. Methods like inquiry learning and multiliteracies are grounded in decades of research, not passing trends.

When used thoughtfully, they complement explicit instruction and help students develop deeper understanding. The real challenge is ensuring teachers are supported to use these methods effectively. And let’s not pretend that one strategy, such as explicit teaching, works for every student and everywhere.

The real role of education academics

It’s also unfair to claim that education academics are out of touch or more interested in publishing than in practical teaching. Many are former teachers or work directly with schools to improve practice.

Suggesting otherwise misrepresents their role in shaping the profession.

Initial teacher education belongs in universities - spaces where cross-, multi-, inter-, and intra-disciplinary thinking thrives.

Why isolate preservice teachers from the very intellectual and professional ecosystems that prepare them to teach across diverse subjects, perspectives, and communities? And, dare I say, become more adept at out-of-field teaching.

Lessons from Singapore: more than meets the eye

Comparisons to Singapore’s National Institute of Education are frequently misunderstood.

The institute is part of a university and maintains high research standards, blending theory, practice, and professionalism.

Its success is supported by significant government investment, coherent policy, and a high-status teaching profession - factors not yet replicated in Australia.

Systemic issues demand systemic solutions

Blaming universities for system-wide issues like teacher shortages, inequity, burnout, or the prevalence of out-of-field teaching misses the bigger picture.

These problems result from years of underinvestment, inconsistent reforms, and political decisions.

Universities don’t assign teachers to out-of-field roles or set education budgets, yet they’re often held responsible for the consequences.

Reform through partnership, not blame

Instead of dismantling ITE, the focus should be on better connecting what preservice teachers learn with real classroom experience. We need to give new teachers time to develop, reflect, and adapt without overwhelming them.

And can we stop just giving lip service to mentoring? Early career teachers, who often do casual, relief or temporary teaching, can miss the boat here, highlighting a disconnect between policy and practice.

ITE must also evolve to address current needs, including Indigenous perspectives, digital skills, and inclusive practice. And out-of-field teaching (yes, it’s a bugbear of mine).

Centralising teacher training isn’t a silver bullet. National reforms are already underway, such as those prompted by the Strong Beginnings report, which introduced new standards for evidence-based teaching. Universities are already updating their programs to reflect these changes.

Invest in the future of teaching

Meaningful reform calls for collaboration, not blame.

Teachers, schools, and students deserve thoughtful improvements - rooted in partnership, mentorship, and realistic classroom placements. Education is inherently political, and every funding or curriculum decision reflects that reality.

If we truly want to improve ITE, we should work with teachers, not against them.

Let’s invest in strong partnerships and practical experience, and stop casting universities as the villains when the real issue is a lack of collective commitment to the future of teaching.