There are currently between ten and 20 reports on the table, all of which tend to call for greater coherence and more quality in teacher training. And that is why now is an extremely good time to really take action and promote substantial structural improvements in teacher training.
We have been working for about a year now on the establishment of a German Society for Teacher Training, in order to do what is happening in other countries, Australia, America for example, namely that we can look at certain topics nationally and tackle them across different phases with experts. And for Germany that would mean that we would have a communication space and a structure, an organizational structure and an expertise structure that could, for example, deal with cross-phase curricula, that could develop standards for institutionalization and for setting up teacher training, that could advise, that could write expert papers, so that it might be easier to achieve a national consensus to reduce the major construction sites in teacher training over time, which we definitely have. That is the idea behind it.
One example is that colleges and universities with a high proportion of student teachers, say 20 percent or more, are thinking more specifically about how they can make teacher training of a high standard. And that includes a whole range of topics, for example how to make the subject of professional relevance and relevance to the field of work more prominent in the specialist subjects for student teachers without potentially lowering the level of the specialist subjects. For example, organizing separate events for student teachers in the specialist subjects or additional events. And that could, for example, be a criterion in a quality seal for how a university deals with specialist subjects in teacher training courses.
Another topic could be: How can the centers and schools have a say when professorships in the area of teacher training are filled? In other words, what profile do they bring with them for teacher training, for example? And that this is not completely left open to the disciplines and subjects, so to speak, because some of them also have other traditions and other interests, and that this can also be used to influence who comes and later gets involved in teacher training at the location. That would be a second example.
Or a third example would be how the heads of the centers and schools are equipped compared to deans, because they often negotiate and speak with deans on an equal footing within the university, so to speak, but they usually do this on a part-time basis and on a voluntary basis and with very little time alongside their professorial work. And a reasonable standard would be that the heads of the centers and schools are similarly equipped and also have similar time budgets to, for example, deans. So that, for example, the schools and centers can work accordingly in view of the increasing tasks that they have, that they are institutionally equipped, that they have appropriate opportunities to have a say, that they are also appropriately linked to the presidiums and rectorates, for example, that the management structure of these centers and schools is appropriately equipped so that they can also effectively advocate for teachers and teacher training within the universities, so to speak. And the problem is that, in a national comparison, it is currently entirely up to the individual university to decide how these centers and schools work and are equipped.
Someone who studies teaching in Germany usually studies in three areas: specialist science, specialist didactics and educational science, and then completes an internship as a fourth area during the course of their studies. And these four areas, so to speak, are held together, organized and supported by the centers for teacher training and the schools of education. And they basically hold the shop together, you could say, put in a sensible structure, make sure that it is coherent and ensure that the course is of high quality so that the students enjoy studying, that they learn something and that they do not, for example, drop out of their studies. The problem at the moment is that the question of how the centers and schools work and are equipped depends almost exclusively on how the rectorates and presidiums, who are in charge of a particular university at that time, see what relevance it has for teacher training and how committed they are to it. This is very often a personal interest that varies greatly depending on who is president at the time or how teacher training is valued in the rectorates and presidiums. There is a great deal of randomness and arbitrariness behind it, which is understandable within the university because if someone becomes rector whose main focus is biochemistry, for example, which has nothing to do with teacher training, or neuroscience or anything else, then it is clear that the primary focus is not teacher training.
And with such a seal of approval and standards for the institutional quality of teacher training, one could also ensure that it is independent of people and that one can say: OK, we guarantee certain standards here at our institution, regardless of the people who are in charge in the presidiums and rectorates. And that would also take a huge burden off the actors in the centers and schools, because they have to enter into new negotiations with each rectorate and presidium and have to work out their standing again in favor of teacher training. And that does not currently exist nationally and is also basically almost not standardized or anchored in any way, let’s say, country-specific. And yet it is a very important basis for teacher training.
The KMK has an incredibly difficult task, of course, due to the culture of the states, and is only as dynamic and fast as the states are willing to participate. In this respect, it is not really the KMK that is at the forefront of the problem, but rather the federal states, which insist on their view of things and have only limited flexibility to develop further. In this respect, the KMK also has a difficult task, but I would not say that the KMK is the spearhead of innovation in Germany, certainly not. And I think that an umbrella organization for teacher training could also work together with the federal states, together with the KMK, but also beyond, to set impulses and bring innovations to the masses. That would be a very, very important goal for teacher training in Germany.
Especially in view of the current situation with a shortage of teachers, with many innovations that are coming to teacher training at a tremendous pace, for example the whole AI discussion, which will continue to haunt us massively in the coming years, where we have to act, the whole digitalization, inclusion, so there are many construction sites that have certainly not yet been sufficiently addressed in teacher training in Germany, and this could definitely be supported and strengthened with such a professional association.
We need support for the first three years or so, because from the fourth year or so we hope that the association will be able to be organized through membership fees. But that will not be possible so quickly in the first three years. That is why we need support, and it is urgently needed, because you have to imagine that this umbrella organization will try to develop substantive papers with consensus and expertise over the phases, to put them into writing, and also to provide advice to politicians and the public.
And you can’t do that on the side. You need an office that works on the content in order to get the idea off the ground. We have no tradition of that in Germany and we need to establish it to some extent first. I would even go so far as to say that starting this society without financial support for the first three years is almost negligent, because otherwise we might be carelessly giving away a very important and good idea. And then the hope would be that with financial support in the first three years we can move in parallel with the Alliance for Teacher Training and together in the same direction, and I have high hopes that this can succeed, because the direction in terms of content is quite clear: it is towards creating greater coherence in Germany and improving the quality of teacher training at all levels.
