How are teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff schools represented in (inter)national policy documents from England and Australia?

ABSTARCT

Teacher shortages are a significant global problem disproportionally affecting “hardest-to-staff” schools and subjects. To better understand (inter)national policy responses to teacher shortages, this paper uses a Bacchian-inspired approach to critically examine proposals suggested as solutions in policy documents from England and Australia, and thus how the problem is being thought about especially in relation to hardest-to-staff contexts. We contend that the problem representations in the policy documents are narrowly conceived and need to be considered differently through the lenses of (re)professionalisation and social justice.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher shortages
• hard-to-staff schools
• teacher attraction
• teacher retention
• teacher professionalism
• social justice

Introduction

Teacher shortages are an intractable global problem, seen as a crisis of unprecedented significance (e.g., Longmuir, 2023). This crisis means that many school systems are grappling with teacher attraction and retention, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many countries, including the United States, England and Australia, report declining numbers entering teaching and accelerating attrition; a recent survey of Australian teachers reported that more than half intend to leave the profession (Heffernan et al., 2022). The effects of this so-called crisis are not equally distributed, hardest felt in socio-economically disadvantaged and geographically isolated communities (Blundell et al., 2022; Lampert et al., 2021). Governments are seeking to redress the problem, especially in these “hardest-to-staff” contexts, begging a critical examination of policy responses.

This paper focuses on how teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff contexts are represented in two (inter)national policies: England’s Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy (2019) and Australia’s National Teacher Workforce Action Plan (2022). This paper proceeds in three sections. First, we outline what we mean by hardest-to-staff schools and why teacher shortages are a problem in these contexts. Second, we explicate our Bacchian-inspired approach to policy analysis, including an overview of the two documents. Third, we elaborate the discourses present in the documents and the problem representations that constitute them to answer: (1) What is the “problem” represented to be in the policies? (2) What assumptions underlie the representation/s of the “problem,” and to what effect? and (3) How can the “problem” be thought about differently? While teacher shortages are a global phenomenon, in this paper we examine policies from England and Australia as Australia has long been a “borrower” of England’s policies (Mayer & Mills, 2021).

Hardest-to-staff schools and teacher shortages

Various nomenclature describes schools facing difficulties in attracting and retaining teachers: “high-needs” (Towers & Maguire, 2017), “challenging” (Huat See et al., 2020), “difficult-to-staff” (Burke & Buchanan, 2022), and “hard-to-staff” (Dadvand et al., 2023) are most common. In an era of widespread teacher shortages, it perhaps makes more sense to use a relative term. For example, “harder-to-staff” is used by White (2019) in relation to Australian schools in rural locations. However, even this term does not capture the severity with which some schools are now experiencing teacher shortages. Throughout this paper, we borrow the Western Australian Education Department’s (2019) phrase “hardest-to-staff” to signify schools in lower socio-economic areas, high culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and schools geographically further from the metropolis (regional, rural, and remote). For many of these schools, teacher shortages are not new; they have long been deemed “hard-to-staff.” The current climate, however, further marginalises them as “hardest-to-staff.” Following Kettle et al. (2022) we acknowledge that these terms (disadvantaged, diverse, challenging, high-poverty) can be stigmatising, however, not to name hardest-to-staff schools can render them invisible, missing out on much needed supports.

Hardest-to-staff schools are a policy focus in both England and Australia; however, the contexts differ. Referring to England, hardest-to-staff schools are often defined in relation to disadvantage, areas of socio-economic marginalisation located in the North-East, West Midlands, and East of England (Huat See et al., 2020). These writers refer to these regions as “cold spots” (p. 679) facing severe subject shortages. In coastal rural areas, the situation is even more dire, teachers often unqualified. In Australia, schools that are hardest-to-staff are often those serving specific populations including Indigenous, multicultural, and high poverty communities (Price, 2016) as well as regional, rural, and remote locations (White, 2019). Like England, Australia also has subject shortages. It is not surprising that these policies that look to address teacher shortages consider the ways in which shortages within subjects can also be alleviated.

More broadly, research to understand teacher attraction and retention has boomed (Sullivan et al., 2019). In terms of attraction, media construction of teachers and their work tends to be negative (Mockler, 2022), perhaps making teaching less desirable than it once was. For people who are interested in a teaching career, barriers such as finances and work-life balance may impede entry to university (Siostrom et al., 2023). In terms of attrition, Towers and Maguire (2017) point out that the reasons why teachers leave the profession are not “clear-cut” (p. 19). These authors cite complex personal and professional circumstances for why teachers leave, including a lack of work/life balance and increased surveillance. Other writers also in the English context (Perryman & Calvert, 2020) and Australian context (see Stacey et al., 2023) concur, citing workload and accountability and performativity affecting teachers’ professionalism as major reasons why teachers leave. However, while these factors have an impact upon teachers, other pressures can intersect to drive certain groups out of teaching. For example, institutional racism, misogyny, and homophobia (Callender, 2020; Tereshchenko et al., 2020). The policy analysis that follows examines some of these concepts.

A Bacchian-inspired policy analysis

Various jurisdictions have put in place strategies to alleviate teacher shortages. Here we focus on two (inter)national policy documents: England’s Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy (England’s Department for Education, 2019) (the Strategy) and Australia’s National Teacher Workforce Action Plan (Australian Government Department of Education, 2022) (the Action Plan). These documents are the “entry-points” (Bacchi, 2009, p. 54) to interrogate how teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff schools and subjects is understood in those two countries.

The Strategy “sets out the government’s priorities for making sure a career in teaching continues to be attractive, sustainable and rewarding” (p. 3). This online 40-page document outlines four priorities: (1) Create the right climate for leaders to establish supportive school cultures; (2) Transform support for early career teachers; (3) Support a career offer that remains attractive to teachers as their careers and lives develop; and (4) Make it easier for great people to become teachers. These priorities highlight a concern with “challenging” or “disadvantaged” schools, however the term “hard-to-staff” is not explicitly used. There is an assumption in the document that teachers do not want to work where pupil behaviour and school and community disadvantage are problems. This leads to these hardest-to-staff areas having acute challenges in terms of “higher levels of [teacher] turnover” and “problems in attracting subject specialists” (p. 11).

The Action Plan sets out what the Australian Government will do to “attract, train and retain people in the [teaching] profession” (p. 3). The online 58-page document comprises 27 actions organised around five priorities: (1) Improving teacher supply, (2) Strengthening initial teacher education, (3) Keeping the teachers we have, (4) Elevating the profession, and (5) Better understanding workforce needs. A 29-page Appendix outlining existing workforce initiatives in Australia’s states and territories makes up half the document. Australia’s Action Plan is focused on “rural” and “remote” locations, and people from diverse backgrounds. It is implied that these people and areas are at the receiving end of historical, social, and economic inequalities affecting teacher attraction and retention.

Carol Bacchi’s (2009) What’s the Problem Represented to be? (WPR) approach is a method for policy analysis drawing on Foucault by examining how rule takes place; in other words, how we are governed. Bacchi (2009) maintains that to understand how governing takes place, the focus must be on problem questioning rather than problem solving – “interrogating the ways in which proposals for change represent problems” (p. vii). In this study, we use Bacchi-inspired questions to ascertain the discourses in the two policies and the problem representations they speak to. The questions are:

1. What is the “problem” represented to be in the policies?

2. What assumptions underlie the representation/s of the “problem,” and to what effect?

3. How can the “problem” be thought about differently?

Questions 1 and 2 are addressed in relation to four discursive problems identified across the policies. We address Question 3 in the Conclusion. These questions are designed to illuminate how we are governed by policy, and how policy shapes specific lines of thought whilst preventing us from thinking differently. In this sense, “problem representations are elaborated in discourse” (Bacchi, 2009, p. 35), where discourses are socially produced forms of knowledge that become what Foucault calls “discursive practices” or “regimes of truth.” To recognise the discursive nature of problem representations, we examined statements, phrases, and words that are repeated, paying particular attention to their co-locations (Bourke & Lidstone, 2015). Such repetition and colocation allows certain discourses to have strength in the policies. For Bacchi (2009), the task of WPR analysis is not about determining if a policy is effective, rather, the aim is to determine its effects.

To engage with the first question, the problem representations around teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff schools and subjects are elicited by working backwards from the policy “proposals” (Bacchi, 2009, p. 3). Question 2 guides the analysis towards a deeper understanding of the knowledges that constitute the “regime of truth” of teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff schools and subjects, what Bacchi (2009) refers to as “conceptual logics” (p. 5). Where possible, we identified key concepts, binaries, and categories within the discourses. To challenge the dominant discourses and assumptions, Bacchi (2009) suggests a reframing of problem representations. Addressing Question 3, therefore, creates space wherein it becomes possible to think differently about teacher shortages.

Addressing the policy ‘problem’ representation, the assumptions underpinning this representation, and its effects

Four discourses are common to the two policy documents: (1) a discourse of investment/support; (2) a discourse of school culture; (3) a discourse of diversity (people and places); and (4) a discourse of hard-to-staff subjects.

Discourse of investment/support

What is the ‘problem’ represented to be?

The first problem representation common to both documents, views teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff schools as a lack of investment/support in career progressions. Following Bacchi (2009), if investment in careers is represented as a necessary change, then the implication is that it has been lacking. In England’s Strategy, invest[ment] is repeated 32 times and co-located with “strategic” (p.16) and “significant” (p.20), showing this government’s willingness to invest in support (mentioned 134 times) for teaching careers. The word career is repeated 121 times, co-located with “stages,” “pathways,” and “early career” (repeated 100 times). In the Australian document, the discourse is similar; career is mentioned 42 times, co-located with pathways (21 times). A discourse of support is also evident, mentioned 119 times. Support is seen as investing in the career stages of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APSTs).

England’s Strategy foregrounds an Early Career Framework (ECF) as the “foundation” (p. 6) from which all other career stages stem. The ECF builds on Initial Teacher Training (ITT). It is a form of induction focused on professional learning, mentorship, and incentives. It is stated that the ECF will be prioritised in hard-to-staff locations, for example, the North-East. In Australia’s Action Plan, induction and mentoring for ECTs is prioritised in “regional and remote areas” (p. 19).

The second proposal is investment/support in later career stages. In England, these are National Professional Qualifications (NPQs); qualifications for teachers who do not want to follow traditional leadership pathways into school management: “We will invest in these new and existing leadership qualifications and will do so disproportionately in challenging schools – encouraging good teachers to work, stay and develop where the need is greatest” (p. 7, 25). In Australia, a similar career progression is encouraged through the Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers’ (HALT) initiative. These application-driven schemes are aimed at enhancing learning in areas such as assessment and behaviour management (NPQs and HALT), as well as hard-to-staff subjects like mathematics (HALT). Additionally, in the Australian document there is reference to a $10 million investment in professional development (called Quality Teaching Rounds, University of Newcastle), but it is not specified whether this initiative is weighted towards hardest-to-staff schools/subjects or later career stages. Whether career progression is via a traditional or non-traditional pathway, this “golden thread” (p. 26), as it is described in England’s Strategy, is seen as a mechanism for investing in and supporting teachers throughout different career stages.

What assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem,’ and to what effect?

In England’s Strategy, ECTs are a distinct category, positioned as “enter[ing] the profession with energy and a strong sense of … purpose,” but also “need[ing] high quality support” (p. 4). This career stage is viewed as where policy can have the “greatest strategic impact” for tackling teacher shortages in England. ECTs, however, are not emphatically foregrounded in the Australian policy; only Recommendation 14 relating to induction for this group. The second category mentioned are NPQ teachers (England) and HALTs (Australia). Like ECTs, these later career teachers are positioned as also needing support.

The assumption is that if there are coherent career progressions that are well-supported, then teachers are more likely to stay in the profession. What is taken for granted is that these programmes will provide high quality support and resourcing, and that people will apply. Commentators such as Martin (2022) question the quality of the ECF, claiming that it is not specialised to teachers’ subjects or phases. In terms of HALTs in Australia, Willis et al. (2022) point out that there have only been 1,025 teachers certified since 2011. Another assumption is that the named areas of specialisation are important for hardest-to-staff schools. This representation positions NPQ teachers and HALTs as having limited choice in the pathway to enhance their career. The effects of the proposals in the policies are left unproblematic. There have been criticisms about workload in all these schemes. For example, Martin’s (2022) survey found that 72% of ECTs and their mentors felt that the ECF added to their workload. In Australia, workload has also been a concern for HALTs, as well as the time demand and financial cost of the application (Willis et al., 2022).

Discourse of school culture

What is the ‘problem’ represented to be?

The second problem representation, common to both policies, views teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff schools as a school culture problem. In England’s Strategy, school culture includes workload, and the impact leadership can have on workload, as well as pupil behaviour. Australia’s Action Plan focuses on the former, emphasising the importance of teachers’ time. Following Bacchi (2009), if school leadership, pupil behaviour, and workload are the changes needed, then these aspects of a school’s culture constitute the problem. In England’s Strategy, the concept “culture/s” is repeated 28 times, co-located with “right,” “inclusive,” and “supportive” – the emphasis on the headteacher creating “the right culture for … staff” (p. 13). In Australia’s Action Plan, “workload” is mentioned 30 times, co-located with “unnecessary,” indicating that there are too many non-teaching demands on teachers’ time.

Common to both the Strategy and Action Plan is reforming excessive workload. England’s Strategy describes how school leaders will be supported to reform school culture by reducing unnecessary assessment and data practices. These are highlighted in relation to hardest-to-staff schools where accountability systems may be felt more acutely. Australia’s Action Plan views unnecessary workload differently, proposing a Workload Reduction Fund (WRF) to make available to teachers pre-packaged assessments and learning plans. It is stated that this investment is for “schools facing systemic disadvantage” (pp. 33–34). The Action Plan further proposes the use of teaching assistants and preservice teachers to reduce teacher workload.

The other part of school culture evident in England’s Strategy is pupil behaviour, described as “a key driver of teacher workload and stress” (p. 16). The Strategy proposes upskilling teachers in this area. There is only one mention of behaviour in the Appendix of Australia’s Action Plan.

What assumptions underlie the representation of the ‘problem,’ and to what effect?

The assumption underpinning this problem representation is that leaders who develop supportive school cultures where workload is reduced will alleviate teacher shortages. Headteachers are the category in focus in England’s Strategy. Managerial forms of accountability are juxtaposed with democratic accountability set up in the repetition of words such as “trust,” “confidence,” “respect,” and “autonomy.” Although not really a binary, the latter is the desired “right” school culture. In the Australian document, there are no obvious binaries or categories.

A specific understanding of the concepts “workload” and “time” underpin both policies. Workload in England’s Strategy is related to data collection and pupil behaviour as taking up teachers’ (and headteachers’) time, whereas Australia’s Action Plan calls for “maximising … teachers’ time” (p. 6, 18) by using pre-packaged curriculum materials. However, according to Stacey et al. (2023), providing ready-made lessons is not the answer, with Australian teachers reporting administrative tasks and paperwork as the activities that “steal” their time. While England’s Strategy draws attention to pupil behaviour, there is a silence around this issue in Australia’s Action Plan. In pointing to workload as a school culture issue, the blame for the situation can be shifted to headteachers/principals. The effects of this may contribute to these leaders’ high levels of stress and to them also departing the profession (Heffernan & Mills, 2023).

Discourse of diversity (people and places)

What is the ‘problem’ represented to be?

The third problem representation common to both policies frames teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff schools as a (lack of) paid pathways problem for diverse people to work in diverse places. The discourse of diversity is thus represented in two ways: people and places. In relation to a diverse teacher shortage, the documents advocate for diversity of the teaching workforce, to mirror the diversity of students and society. The diverse people needed as part of England’s strategy are career changers, overseas skilled migrants, individuals with skills in hard-to-staff subjects, and teaching assistants. The group most needed in Australia is First Nations peoples, mentioned 63 times. Other people that Australia would recruit are: high achieving school leavers; mid-career professionals; already registered teachers (e.g., overseas, retired, and preservice teachers); and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Regarding diverse places as problems is where the documents differ. England’s strategy focuses on disadvantaged locations (repeated 8 times), while Australia’s Action Plan focuses on rural (26 times) and remote (29 times). Following Bacchi (2009), if pathways for diverse people to work in diverse places is the change that is necessary, then the implication is that these have been lacking in both countries.

Both England and Australia focus on “bespoke routes” (England’s Strategy, p. 33) for recruiting diverse cohorts to diverse locations. Examples in England include Teach First, Now Teach, and School Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT) programmes. These financially-supported programmes are expected to “grow,” especially in hardest-to-staff areas so the best teachers can continue their careers in locations that need them the most. In Australia, the High Achieving Teachers’ programme supports career changers to simultaneously work and study in short-staffed schools. The government anticipates this scheme will “attract more maths and science teachers and more Indigenous teachers into schools … most in need” (p. 10).

Australia’s Action Plan outlines additional mechanisms to encourage diversity in relation to people and places. These include bursaries to study, paid placements in remote areas, recognition of prior skills and experiences, marketing campaigns, awards, and workload reductions. Additionally, teachers will be supported to (re)enter and stay in the profession by way of student loan reductions if they teach in very remote areas and remain there. In terms of teachers from overseas, fast-tracked visa processing for skilled immigrants is a priority for those moving to regional locations.

What assumptions underlie these representations of the ‘problems,’ and to what effect?

This problem representation presupposes that employment-based pathways are the best way to support diverse groups of people to work in diverse places. These so-called “prestigious” (p. 34) apprenticeship programmes are assumed to produce high-quality teachers. While such programmes may lead high-achieving people (e.g., skilled mid-career changers) to become teachers, quality teaching is not a given. This equating of “high-achieving” and “quality” could, at the very least, exacerbate teacher attrition as teachers may not have the specific skills to cope in hardest-to-staff locations. Furthermore, while such pathways may encourage larger numbers into teaching, this does not necessarily translate to them staying in the profession. For example, research into apprenticeship programmes in Australia has shown that in some locations, 40% of teachers leave after four years (Dandolopartners, 2017). Finally, financial incentives through bursaries, paid placements, and employment-based pathways are not substitutes for the moral reasons people enter the profession in the first place (Siostrom et al., 2023).

Discourse of hardest-to-staff subjects

What are the ‘problems’ represented to be in the policies?

A discourse of hardest-to-staff subjects is also evident in both policies. In England’s Strategy, the discourse is evident in the repetition of “subjects” (11 times), co-located with “shortage,” “maths,” “science,” “languages,” and “specialist” (repeated 18 times). In Australia’s Action Plan, “subject” is also repeated (13 times), alongside “specialist/specialisation” (28 times) referring to maths and science. Despite a common discourse, the problem representations are different. In England, teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff subjects are represented as an ITT recruitment systems problem, whereas in Australia it is represented as a workforce data problem.

In terms of England’s Strategy, teaching is sold as a “prestigious” and “fulfilling” career with a “moral purpose.” However, the current systems for applying to be a teacher are described as “off-putting,” especially in relation to hardest-to-staff subjects. Following Bacchi (2009), if England’s Strategy views recruitment systems as needing improvement, then current systems are inadequate. In terms of Australia’s Action plan, the word “data” is repeated 37 times, co-located with “demand,” “supply,” and “pipeline.” The emphasis is on recruiting teachers to short-staffed subjects and phases (early childhood). Again, following Bacchi (2009), if Australia’s Action Plan views workforce data as the change that is needed, then there is a lack of disaggregated data to inform workforce planning.

England’s Strategy puts forward two proposals in relation to ITT recruitment. The first proposal is efficient digital systems alongside changed entry requirements from the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). The second proposal in England’s Strategy is the Teachers’ Loan Reimbursement Scheme, specifically for ECTs to pay back student loans. These teachers receive incentives to study in hardest-to-staff subjects or to work in “challenging areas” (p. 22). These staggered payments are intended to keep beginning teachers progressing through their careers.

Australia’s Action Plan proposes a better understanding of future teacher workforce needs by collecting disaggregated data based on location/subject. These data will be accompanied by an investment in additional Commonwealth Supported Places for sub-bachelor and bachelor degrees in Education, so one assumes this is for hardest-to-staff subjects. A further investment of 480,000 fee-free Technical and Further Education (TAFE) places is for training more early childhood educators.

What assumptions underlie these representations of the ‘problems,’ and to what effect?

The assumption in the English problem representation is that by simplifying the application process to become a teacher and paying incentives, more people will apply (and stay) and less people who do apply will be rejected. However, this appears contradictory, and sets up a binary as to the reasons teachers enter the profession in the first place. For example, the document positions teachers as “shap[ing] the life chances of the next generation” (p. 19), and “unique in helping others to realise their potential” (p. 19), which would be particularly important in hardest-to-staff areas. What is unclear is how monetary incentives would fulfil these moral purposes for teaching (Siostrom et al., 2023). In fact, the document refers to “teachers leaving the profession often go to jobs that pay less, in search of a better work-life balance” (p.11).

In terms of Australia’s Action Plan, it is assumed that high-quality workforce data will help to address teacher shortages, especially in hardest-to-staff subjects. Yet, this problem representation shifts the responsibility of teaching shortages from the government to agencies such as the Australian Institute for School Leadership (AITSL) and individual jurisdictions with little mention of any investment/support for the ethical collection, storage, and use of data or for data sharing arrangements.

What is problematic in both policies is the binary established by the use of the terms specialised and non-specialised subjects to describe the hardest-to-staff subjects phenomenon, with the latter non-specialised subjects excluded from support/investment in favour of predominately STEM disciplines.

Conclusion

We identified the following discourses across the documents: investment/support, school culture, diversity (people and places), and hardest-to-staff subjects. While the problem representations that constitute these discourses are valid, our analysis encourages readers to exercise caution when considering the assumptions and effects identified. We suggest that there is a need to look at teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff schools differently using (re)professionalisation and social justice to think about systemic changes. In doing so we answer the final research question, how can the “problem” be thought about differently?

How can the problem be thought about differently?

The first way of looking at the problem differently is through a (re)professionalisation lens. There are several examples across the discourses that reveal elements of de-professionalisation, despite the proposals being well intended. In the discourse of investment/support, England’s ECF positions ECTs as “formally qualified, but not yet fully capable” (Kelchtermans, 2019, p. 86), the classroom (un)ready discourse. Notwithstanding that ECTs need induction, this proposal focuses on weaknesses rather than strengths. ECTs should be seen as professional agents; assets to any school (Kelchtermans, 2019). Indeed, Gore et al. (2023) maintain that there are no significant differences in teaching quality between beginning and experienced teachers. De-professionalisation is also evident in other career stages, for example where NPQ teachers in England are not given any choice in their specialisation. Teachers working in hardest-to-staff schools may think that student wellbeing, belonging, and inclusion are more pertinent to their contextual professional learning. Furthermore, differentiating teachers’ pay and conditions according to their subject expertise is likely to disrupt collegiality, building resentment amongst those not receiving such recognition. Whilst the current focus on investment in teachers is welcome, it needs to be grounded in trust, autonomy, and respect.

In the discourse of school culture, the creation of “teacher-proof” curricula in Australia is another example of the de-professionalisation of teachers. Curriculum making is teachers’ core business and removing this aspect of their work devalues their expertise. Poulton (2020) maintains pre-packaged curriculum materials decrease teachers’ professionalism and agency, working against the trust and autonomy desired in a “right” school culture. According to Lawrence et al. (2019), teachers are satisfied with their teaching workload, but are dissatisfied with the abundance of government-imposed non-teaching tasks. This is an example where policymakers’ interpretation of teachers’ time and workloads are misaligned with reality. Creagh et al. (2023) assert that teachers’ time needs to be thought about differently by considering volume (workload), and complexity and pace (work intensification); what these writers have termed “time poverty.” In terms of hardest-to-staff schools, where accountability is acutely felt, reducing a performativity culture might claw back time for teachers to deal with their core business (Thompson et al., 2021). There are glimpses of this in England’s Strategy.

De-professionalisation is also evident where alternative, school-based models of initial teacher education are pathways for diverse people in diverse locations. These programmes, oriented to practical concerns, often devalue deep theoretical understandings (McConney et al., 2012). The narrative of these programmes is that teaching is simple and requires no specialised knowledge or skills (Moss et al., 2020). Whilst acknowledging the urgency to fast-track teachers into classrooms, it must be remembered that teaching is complex, especially in hardest-to-staff schools. Partnerships between schools and universities need to be thought about differently so theory-practice divides are bridged.

The second way of looking at the problem differently is through a social justice lens, especially in relation to the discourses of school culture and diversity. England’s Strategy foregrounds pupil behaviour as a reason for teacher attrition. However, this fails to recognise that young people living in communities facing severe economic, social, and political marginalisation do not leave these marginalisations at the school gate – they come in with them. Proposing that teachers need professional development in behaviour management is not enough. Young people need what McGregor et al. (2017) describe as a clear path for learning, meaning access to food, housing, transportation, and other services, linked with the school community. This joined-up policy environment may provide the infrastructure for getting to the root cause of behavioural problems. Investment in housing, transportation, employment, and community and social infrastructure could also be drawcards for attracting and retaining teachers.

In relation to the discourse of diversity, the teaching profession in England and Australia both lack racial and ethnic diversity. Instead of monetary incentives to attract diverse people to diverse places, the profession and wider society need to focus on making schools safe places for everyone to work. Schools in England and Australia are designed for, and primarily governed by, those from English-speaking, white, middle-class backgrounds and can be unforgiving places for diverse teachers. Unless there is systemic reform overtly dealing with institutional racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination (e.g., Callender, 2020; Tereshchenko et al., 2020) a lack of diversity in the teaching workforce will remain.

Ultimately, our analysis has shown a narrowly conceived notion of the problem of teacher shortages in hardest-to-staff contexts. We contend that (re)professionalisation and social justice lenses are needed to frame this problem from a much wider angle.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research is funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC DP230100041).