Trialling the QTPA in Kindergarten: Making Visible the Professional Work of Teachers in ECEC

Abstract

In Australia, preservice teachers are required to complete a capstone Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) to graduate. A TPA a nationally endorsed assessment, requires preservice teachers to demonstrate their practice (planning, teaching, assessing and evaluation) against the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST – Graduate Level). To date, in most states including Queensland, this assessment is completed in a school and not a prior-to-school early childhood education and care (ECEC) setting. This fails to recognise the professional nature of ECEC teaching and is a barrier to increasing the number of qualified teachers in prior-to-school education. This paper shares insights from a pilot study that investigated the implementation of a TPA in kindergarten settings. Drawing on views and experiences of preservice early childhood teachers, supervising early childhood teachers, approved providers and university staff, we explore the benefits and challenges of implementing a TPA in ECEC settings.

Introduction

Recognising teacher knowledge and capability as the key determinant of effective teaching and learning, successive Australian education reforms have sought to define quality teaching (Singh et al., 2021), and to identify ways to support, strengthen and evaluate teachers’ professional work. Associated with the policy discourse of professionalisation of the teaching workforce, this is evident across all education settings (e.g., early childhood education, primary and secondary school) in Australia, and has become a global discourse in education, promoted and reported widely in international policy reviews (OECD, 2018, 2021).

Characterised by an increase in top-down quality assurance measures, the underpinning expectation is that strengthened regulation and standards can promote and support improved professional practice, status and accountability (Irvine et al., 2024; OECD, 2018). A prime lever in the professionalisation agenda is teacher qualifications, including strengthening initial teacher education. In Australia, there have been multiple and overlapping teacher education reviews and related reforms over the past decade. Of note here is the landmark report Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers of the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG, 2014), which paved the way for significant reform over the past decade, with the expressed aim of professionalising teaching in Australia, through “stronger quality assurance of teacher education” (p. 33). Key initiatives included: a national accreditation system for initial teacher education programs “contingent upon robust evidence of successful graduate outcomes” (TEMAG, 2014, p. vii) and introduction of a mandatory capstone Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) requiring graduating preservice teachers to demonstrate “classroom readiness” (TEMAG, 2014, p. viii) against the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers – Graduate level (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2011).

Our interest is early childhood teacher education, specifically the preparation of highly skilled teachers to work with children from birth to 8 years old, in prior-to-school early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings (long day care, kindergarten, preschool) and the early years of school (Prep to Year 3 [Queensland]). Putting to one side critiques of the above initiatives (Bourke, 2022; Mockler, 2022), we draw attention to the continuing focus in Australian initial teacher education policy on preparing teachers to work in schools, and the absence of ECEC as an education context. Recognising the influence of education policy in shaping professional identity, practice and career choices (Ball, 2005), we see the omission of ECEC in national teacher education policy as highly problematic and a barrier to current efforts to build “a sustainable, high quality [ECEC] workforce of teachers and educators that is highly respected and valued by the broader community” (ACECQA, 2021, p. 6).

A prime example of the omission of teachers in ECEC is the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) which provide the foundation for teaching and teacher education in Australia. The APST describe the professional knowledge, practice and engagement expectations of teachers at different career stages, and are pivotal to the professional recognition, work and career progression of teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2021; Callaway, Cole & Kimble, 2021). The standards also serve as the foundation for initial teacher education in Australia, specifying the knowledge and capabilities that preservice teachers need to evidence to graduate, apply for teacher registration and enter the teaching profession. Introduced in 2011, the APST focus on teaching in school settings, and despite a national review of teacher registration (Education Services Australia, 2018) that recommended amendment “to ensure their relevance and applicability to early childhood teachers” in ECEC (p. vii), the standards remain school-based. The APST and introduction of the aligned TPA have impacted the design, content, funding and evaluation of initial teacher education over the past decade, and are focused on preparing teachers to work in schools. By default, this impacts the experiences and opportunities afforded to preservice early childhood teachers seeking to teach in ECEC settings.

The absence of ECEC as an education context in teacher education policy has been attributed to the historical positioning of ECEC outside of compulsory school education in Australia (Nuttall, 2018). However, we believe that ongoing ECEC policy reforms in Australia and internationally necessitate a rethink and move to adopt a more inclusive education policy framework. Drawing on the work of Nuttall (2018), key drivers in Australia include the regulatory requirement for more degree-qualified teachers in ECEC, implementation of the national Early Years Learning Framework (Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE], 2022), mandatory registration of teachers working in ECEC settings in four of the eight Australian states and territories, and recent national commitment to establish a universal system of high-quality inclusive ECEC (Australian Labor Party, 2024). Adding further reason and a sense of urgency for change is the continuing shortfall of teachers available to teach in Australian ECEC (McKinlay et al., 2018), with predicted growth of 8.6% in demand for degree-qualified early childhood teachers by 2034 (Jobs and Skills Australia, 2024) Seeking to address this gap, ECEC policymakers have led the co-design of a ten-year national workforce strategy entitled Shaping our Future (ACECQA, 2021). Dedicated to growing, stabilising and sustaining the Australian ECEC workforce, focus areas include professional recognition and remuneration, attraction and retention, leadership and capability, wellbeing, qualifications and career pathways, and data and evidence (ACECQA, 2021).

Aligned to the national workforce strategy, we believe that teaching in ECEC must be visible, valued and supported in national teacher education policy. In this paper we discuss the learnings and insights from a small-scale pilot study that investigated the implementation of a TPA in approved kindergarten (preschool) settings. The paper is structured accordingly beginning with information about the TPA, then the research context and design followed by findings, discussion and conclusion.

The Teaching Performance Assessment

With required implementation from 2019, the Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) is a policy-mandated capstone assessment in initial teacher education. It is designed for preservice teachers in their final year of study to demonstrate their ability to meet the APST (Graduate level) through a range of teaching activities in a school setting (i.e., primary or secondary). Building on the practice of capstone teaching assessments traditionally designed and implemented by individual institutions (Moss & Morrisey, 2018), TPAs are endorsed through the national teacher regulatory authority and may be used by multiple institutions. Similar policy initiatives have been adopted internationally, most notably, in the United States with the introduction of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) and the Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA, see https://www.edtpa.com/). In Australia, the TPA has been positioned as a rigorous measure of classroom readiness (AITSL, 2021) and promoted as key in assuring ready to teach graduates. Preservice teachers must demonstrate their ability to implement the full planning cycle including observing, planning, teaching, assessing, and critically reflecting on their impact on student learning. While this is a worthy aim, the ‘classroom readiness’ discourse is problematic. The term lacks clear definition and can limit conceptions of initial teacher education as training focused on pre-defined sets of knowledge, skills, or practices, prescribed in teacher professional standards (Alexander, 2018; Mascadri et al., 2023), serving to narrow curriculum and pedagogy. The discourse of classroom readiness is therefore essentially an expression of teacher professional standards. Given the APST were written with an explicit focus on school-based teaching, what classroom readiness looks like for a teacher in an ECEC context, becomes less clear. Following Alexander’s (2018) analysis of the term, we have adopted the concept of ‘readiness for the profession’. We believe this reframing is more inclusive, underscoring the importance of teaching across the education continuum, and that any measure of readiness is only “an initial milestone in a life-long process of professional learning” (Alexander, 2018, p. 108).

Nationally there exists several endorsed TPAs, recognised by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. In this study we draw on our experience of the Quality Teacher Performance Assessment (QTPA), developed by a consortium of teacher educators from Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Edith Cowan University, University of the Sunshine Coast and Murdoch University. The QTPA is undertaken in the final semester of a four-year teaching degree, with evidence gathering occurring during the final professional experience placement. To complete the QTPA, preservice teachers assess and collect evidence of student learning, plan and implement a sequence of learning experiences, and evaluate the impact and effectiveness of their teaching practices over a specified period of 25 days. Further, they must critically reflect on their teaching philosophy, underpinning educational theories and professional development. The QTPA comprises a written element, including detailed planning documentation, as well as a short oral presentation where preservice teachers reflect on their planning decisions and impact of the selected teaching strategies. The QTPA, like other TPAs, is aligned with the Australian Curriculum and APST, and thereby, the work of teachers in schools.

The Research Context

QUT’s Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) is a four-year degree that prepares specialist early childhood teachers to work with children from birth to 8 years old, across the full range of early education settings, including early learning centres, kindergartens, and Prep to Year 3 in primary schools. Prospective students select the course because it optimises their employment outcomes and career pathways. While the course design addresses teaching in ECEC and school settings in equal measure, prior to 2022, students were required to complete their final professional experience and capstone QTPA in a school setting. This policy mandate presents a number of challenges for preservice teachers pursuing a teaching career in ECEC and the national goal to grow a qualified and professional ECEC workforce. The TPA was introduced to ensure that graduates are ready to enter the workforce and begin their teaching career. While selecting a specialist early childhood initial teacher education program that prepares them to work in ECEC and the early years of school, preservice teachers did not have opportunity to complete their final professional experience and TPA in ECEC, even when they planned to begin their teaching career in ECEC. Tied to the APST, the TPA promotes the professional work of teaching in school and is contextually embedded in the language and practices of schools. At a time of workforce shortages across education settings, many preservice teachers are offered employment during their final placement. We view the requirement to complete the final placement and TPA in a school setting as inequitable, for both preservice teachers and prospective ECEC employers, and believe this presents an unnecessary and unacceptable barrier to growing the teaching workforce in ECEC.

Research Design

The aim of the study was to pilot and evaluate the efficacy of the QTPA in prior-to-school ECEC, with a view to introducing this option for all preservice early childhood teachers in the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) degree. As this represented a change to the accredited initial teacher education program, the researchers sought and gained endorsement for the pilot from the Queensland College of Teachers, the statutory authority for regulating the teaching profession in Queensland. In line with the school-based QTPA, the expectation was that preservice teachers would plan, document and implement a sequence of learning experiences over the five-week placement, addressing the Queensland Kindergarten Learning Guideline (QKLG) (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2024) learning and development area of ‘Communicating’. The QTPA task was adapted to suit the language and practices of the kindergarten context. Planning focused on children as individual learners, and a smaller number of children (approximately 7 children), and preservice teachers were required to evaluate the impact of their teaching for two focus children. Teaching and assessment practices were to be informed by the kindergarten setting and the QKLG.

The pilot was developed in collaboration with ECEC sector partners, ran for 2 years (2023–2024), and included a staged research and evaluation plan exploring processes and outcomes. The research design was influenced by socio-cultural epistemology (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978), firmly grounded in the belief that knowledge and understanding is constructed and negotiated by participants in their everyday contexts. In line with this, the study employed multiple data collection strategies to elicit and understand individual experiences of the QTPA in kindergarten, recognising that participants may have different experiences. The study was granted ethical approval through University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 7296).

Participants

There were three groups of participants: (i) early childhood preservice teachers enrolled in the four-year Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) degree, (ii) staff from host kindergartens (e.g., supervising teachers and service provider representatives), and (iii) university staff involved in teaching the QTPA and trialling it in kindergarten settings.

Preservice teachers in their final year were invited to participate in the pilot program through an expression of interest process. It was made clear that students and host kindergartens could participate in the pilot and choose not to be part of the research. Given the high stakes nature of this capstone assessment, early childhood preservice teachers were invited to submit an expression of interest to do their final TPA in a kindergarten setting and participate in this study. This resulted in a small, self-selected number of participants (n = 7), of which 6 participated in the research.

Following the selection of preservice teachers, host kindergartens were sought based on the following criteria: the ECEC setting offered an approved kindergarten program (Queensland Department of Education, 2025); the kindergarten program was delivered by a 4-year degree qualified and registered teacher; and the ECEC setting was rated ‘Exceeding NQS’ or above (ACECQA, 2024). Consideration was also given to the location and accessibility of the kindergarten setting for the participating preservice teachers. Participating kindergartens included 5 standalone kindergartens and 2 approved kindergarten programs in long day care services, spanning for-profit and not-for-profit service providers reflective of the Australian ECEC sector. Four kindergarten staff participated in the interviews. The pilot was informed and supported by a working group of university colleagues, that brought together staff with an interest in ECEC, the QTPA and professional experience. A particular strength of the working group was the mix of expertise and experience, which spanned early childhood, primary and secondary education. A focus group of university colleagues involved in the study was held at the conclusion of the pilot (n = 10). The focus group was led by the research assistant and questions were carefully curated to ensure that the discussion represented a balanced view of the pilot.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data was collected using a multi-method approach (Hesse-Biber & Burke Johnson, 2015) over the two years of the pilot. Individual interviews were held with early childhood preservice teachers (n = 6) and staff from kindergarten educational providers (n = 4). Interviews were conducted via Zoom and were approximately 20–30 min in duration. A face-to-face focus group was also held with university staff from the QTPA in the Kindergarten working group (n = 10) and audio recorded via Zoom. The interview and focus group recordings were automatically transcribed by the Zoom platform and then verified by one member of the research team to ensure accuracy.

Data analysis followed a reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2022) suitable for examining qualitative data (interview and focus group transcripts) to identify themes. Two of the working group who were experienced in analysing qualitative interview data performed the coding. There were multiple iterative processes for the coding and the formation of codes and all analysis was checked by members of the working group for accuracy and to reach consensus. As coding and analysis are subjective processes, we were able, through discussion, to reconcile any different perspectives and come to agreement. Codes were subsequently developed into the following themes: professional recognition of early childhood teachers, improving visibility and recognition of the value of early childhood education, play-based learning and intentional teaching, assessment and strengthening professional partnerships in early childhood education.

Findings

In this section we discuss the findings derived from data analysis of interview and focus group transcripts from the three participant groups: preservice teachers (PST), kindergarten supervising teachers and kindergarten providers (ST/KP), and university staff (US) to answer the research question ‘What are the experiences of preservice teachers, staff from host kindergartens and university staff undertaking the QTPA in a kindergarten setting?’. The findings are organised into themes that were presented through analysis.

Professional Recognition of Early Childhood Teachers

For the preservice teachers, being able to complete the QTPA in a kindergarten setting affirmed their choice of career and validated their developing identities as professional early childhood teachers. Teaching in a prior to school setting aligned with their personal philosophies about how young children learn.

I think what I like most about undertaking the QTPA in kindergarten was the opportunity to teach in the age group and in the setting where I ultimately … want to build my career … I gained confidence in my ability to plan and implement effective lessons that are developmentally appropriate, engaging, and based on a play-based pedagogical approach (PST6).

Through their responses early childhood preservice teachers highlighted the importance of early years education and professional recognition of teachers working in ECEC settings. By completing the QTPA in their chosen setting (kindergarten), the PSTs felt that their work in this space was valued and perceived as equal to teachers working in schools:

… it's really important to bring early childhood to the forefront and make it noticeable that you go to university to be an early childhood teacher … having this as a QTPA option shows us that we are valued… it's nice to feel that you're a professional and that you’re given the same opportunities (PST3).

The university staff concurred:

… they [preservice teachers] have the opportunity to shine because they were in the domain that they wanted to be in. Rather than being forced to be in a space where they didn't really want to be (US4).

… the students probably didn't necessarily know how important their contribution was to the project…that they were actually quite courageous to be those pioneers … you could sort of see that that really bolstered their professional self-confidence (US5).

This professional recognition is vital. Enabling students to demonstrate their capabilities in a setting they felt confident in and that aligned with their teaching philosophies provided clear acknowledgement that early childhood teachers are also professionals. To be given equitable opportunities to show their knowledge, skills and practice, in alignment with the APST, in their chosen area did not go unnoticed by the early childhood preservice teachers who participated in this pilot.

Improving Visibility and Recognition of the Value of Early Childhood Education

Not only was it “courageous” for the preservice teachers to be involved in the QTPA kindergarten pilot, it was also pioneering for the university and evidenced the university’s commitment to improve the visibility and recognition of the work that teachers in ECEC perform. This increased recognition also extended to regulatory bodies, with US1 observing there had been “quite a significant shift with education authorities recognising that the TPA could be done in the kindergarten setting...it does just remind people about the similarities here”.

Recognising the Similarities in Professional Practice

For university staff without an early childhood background, working on the pilot increased their awareness of early childhood practice and pedagogy, and increased their understanding of the work that early childhood teachers do as similar to teachers in school settings in many ways:

… this gave a little bit of extra reason to focus on the aspects of early childhood planning … it's a good opportunity to show students about the commonalities as well, not just the differences (US7).

It was clear that there were some misconceptions about early childhood teaching practice. For some, there was a realisation that “it’s education” whether it is primary, secondary or early childhood, and that previous QTPA resources, documentation and terminology had been very school-focused:

I hadn't really thought about what early childhood teachers were doing in the QTPA … when the pilot started it sort of hit me that this was a group of preservice teachers who hadn't found a home in their course. And these are the very people we actually need to keep in the profession (US3).

Acknowledging the important work that early childhood teachers do, as equivalent to that of teachers in other education settings, supports recognition and valuing of the professional nature of this work. In the context of initial teacher education, the pilot promoted the profile and professional status of teaching in ECEC to the next generation of teachers taking up positions in ECEC and school settings.

Recognising the Differences in Professional Practice

The data further highlighted that teaching, learning and assessment practices can look different across prior-to-school ECEC and school settings. The QTPA timeframe presented some challenges in the kindergarten setting. One kindergarten provider (KP1) remarked that the QTPA requirements to “gather data [and] assess the growth and the impact on their teaching ... it’s not enough time for the age group”. She elaborated further “you know their growth isn’t always beautifully linear ... So, I suspect with a difficult group of children it might be complex and difficult for the preservice teacher to show any clear growth trajectory because of the time”. Reflecting on the 5-week final professional experience, one supervising teacher commented, “I feel they [preservice teachers] don’t have enough time because they’re under the crunch that they use the assessment part, but they haven’t really had that time to even build relationships with children or even have that relationship with us” (ST1). Preservice teacher 6 concurred and reported that during the data gathering phase, there were a few children who:

refuse[d] to do the diagnostic task with me, because I think they're not comfortable yet with me … And sometimes, if I ask them to come, they would refuse, and if I'll go or interact with them during their play and try to like, get my data, they will just stop playing and walk away.

These comments from preservice teachers and kindergarten staff highlight differences in professional practice and remind us of the centrality of relationships in ECEC. As in any education setting, building these relationships requires adult intentionality, pedagogical skill and time, and potentially more time when working with younger children. Further, as discussed below, there is a need to strengthen visibility of planning and assessment in play-based ECEC, and how teachers gather evidence of learning and the impact of teaching over the short and longer-term.

Play-Based Learning and Intentional Teaching

Play-based learning pedagogies “allow for different types of play and recognise the intentional roles that both children and educators may take in children’s learning” (AGDE, 2022, p. 21). Respecting and supporting children’s intentionality and agency, play-based learning affords intentionality to educators and agentive action to “expand children’s thinking and enhance their desire to know and to learn” (AGDE, 2022, p. 21). However, there are different views and continuing discussion about the role of the teacher in leading play-based learning and assessment. One of the supervising teachers noted that as part of the QTPA “there was a lot more structure and a lot more intentional teaching that wasn’t from the children” (ST4). Here, the supervising teacher inferred that intentional teaching was adult-led rather than child-led and antithetical to child-centred teaching. Despite emphasis in the revised EYLF, misunderstandings around intentional teaching and assessment as discrete from child-centred practice continues. This denies the role of the teacher to provide provocations, evaluate and promote thinking and learning in play-based contexts (Grimmond et al., 2022; Leggett, 2025). Planning and documenting a sequence of five learning experiences for a small number of children focusing on the QKLG (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2024) learning and development area ‘Communicating’ created tension for some participants, reflective of different perspectives on planning and assessment in ECEC. For example, one preservice teacher remarked: “I couldn’t just write up my plans for the week and then go, this is what I’m going to do because quite often it changed” (PST3).

She continued:

I did not want to interrupt their play when they were very engaged with scientific experimentation, like they were rolling balls and trying to figure out how to make them go further. And they had a lot of mathematical and scientific thinking happening (PST3).

The quote above recognises the intentionality and agentive action of children in play-based teaching and learning, that is, “children make decisions, and with what and with whom to engage and invite into their play” (AGDE, 2022, p. 21). The preservice teacher wrestled with how to incorporate adult-led planning and assessment practices in play-based teaching and learning. Responses from preservice teachers and kindergarten staff reinforce that as early childhood teachers, we cannot always forward plan and need to be flexible and responsive to children’s emerging interests and ideas. A further difference is noted regarding the nature of assessment in early childhood settings, as discussed below.

Assessment

Assessing and monitoring children’s learning is part of the professional work of teachers across education settings. However, assessment and documentation of learning may appear different in ECEC and school settings. The term ‘assessment’ is still contentious in early childhood settings which some educators align with more formalised approaches to teaching and learning. Grimmond et al., (2022) state that quality practice in early childhood is underpinned by assessment to gather a deeper understanding of children’s capabilities and strengths, and intentionality that responds to each child. This is supported by the revised EYLF as the “gathering of information about children’s learning, development and wellbeing, undertaken over time using a range of strategies” (AGDE, 2022, p. 25).

As one supervising teacher (ST4) noted, “we do assessment in early education” but it might look different. Further, preservice teachers felt some pressure about the nature of the data that was required to evidence teaching and learning. PST 3 commented: “It was difficult because the expectation of the QTPA is to show a lot of evidence that is not necessarily observational”. Prioritisation of play-based learning was a key consideration in the kindergarten setting. Preservice teacher 1 indicated how she found the assessment part challenging. “I thought it was really tricky to find a way to assess the kids that wasn’t just a sit down, do an assessment and assess from there. Like I still had to incorporate some sort of play”. One preservice teacher commented that her supervising teacher was not able to help her with the assessment stating that they “don’t do assessment like that” but understood that in ECEC assessments are carried out “in a playful way” (PST3). Another preservice teacher told us how her supervising teacher “helped in a way where ... she showed me ideas of how they assess and how they assess through play and how just having everything be hands-on is the way to go with the kids” (PST4).

Part of the aim of the QTPA in kindergarten pilot was to make visible and celebrate early childhood practice in planning, teaching and assessing in the prior-to-school settings. Comments from preservice teachers and kindergarten staff indicate a difference in the nature of these practices informed by early childhood philosophy, pedagogies and the approved learning framework, in this case, the QKLG.

Strengthening Professional Partnerships in Early Childhood Education

Partnerships with the key stakeholders in the sector were pivotal to the success of the QTPA in kindergarten pilot. Partners expressed how “fulsome and supportive” (ST2) the communication was, and how helpful the initial training session was:

what you asked us, how you asked us, how we were involved at different stages and levels made us feel like valued partners … I liked the level of high expectation (ST2).

Such partnerships seek to collaborate and strengthen the sector by mentoring and producing excellent graduates who will forge teaching careers in ECEC. Partner early childhood organisations were able to provide kindergarten settings where supervising teachers were skilled and keen to participate and support preservice teachers. Indeed, preservice teachers felt valued in this process:

… we were a team … we were working through it together … I basically took her through each step of my QTPA. And we talked it through. She gave advice when needed...so having that support. (ST5)

There were also seen to be reciprocal benefits for supervising teachers and their organisations:

… to watch a preservice teacher move through that process would actually be very professionalising for them to say ‘Wow, okay that’s not how I would normally do it. Let’s get in there and do this together’. And that’s why I’ve always loved having a preservice teacher because I learnt something from them as well. I saw that little complex piece of condensed work has also been potentially a growth point for the supervising teacher (ST2).

… the moderation process for the task … fitted beautifully with the new EYLF version 2 of leadership and capability (ST2).

These benefits primarily related to the upskilling of the kindergarten staff through their engagement in the pilot, in particular, providing opportunities for developing leadership capacity.

Discussion

All preservice early childhood teachers in the pilot successfully completed their QTPA capstone assessment, demonstrating they met the APST (Graduate Level) and were eligible to graduate and apply for teacher registration. The study findings make visible similarities in the nature of the professional work of teachers in ECEC and schools. With reference to the APST, this includes: knowing the children you are working with (Standard 1); knowing the approved learning framework and pedagogies that support play-based learning (Standard 2); planning, implementing and assessing effective teaching and learning (Standards 3 and 5); creating supportive and safe learning environments (Standard 4); engaging in professional learning (Standard 6); and working professionally with colleagues, families and the community (Standard 7).

The study also highlights contextual differences in how teachers plan, teach and assess in kindergarten and how the impact of teaching on learning is monitored and evidenced. Differences were particularly evident in the areas of assessment and adult-led teaching and learning. Seeking evidence of the ability to implement the full planning cycle, the QTPA requires preservice teachers to collect diagnostic data to determine “what children know, understand and can do” (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2024, p. 16) to inform the development of a sequence of learning experiences. While assessment and evaluation are longstanding practices in ECEC, the terminology and language of assessment remain problematic for some teachers who associate this with school-based assessment practices (Cloney et al., 2019). It is important to recognise differences in the purpose and practice of assessment in ECEC settings. In kindergarten, assessment is concerned with children’s engagement in the program, progress towards and achievement of broad learning goals. Another key difference is that in school settings, diagnostic assessment is often undertaken with the whole class (e.g., a test of pre-determined content knowledge), whereas assessment in kindergarten tends to concentrate on individual learning, development and wellbeing. Recognising this, preservice teachers were asked to focus on a smaller number of children (approximately 7 children) and encouraged to draw on rigorous evidence-informed assessment practices commonly used in kindergarten assessment such as observation, conversation, collection of artefacts and play-based strategies. The study findings highlight assessment practices in ECEC as an area for further attention, in both initial early childhood teacher education and continuous professional learning.

Reflective of continuing discussion within the ECEC sector (Taylor & Boyer, 2020), the study reveals different understandings and perspectives on adult and child intentionality and the role of the teacher in play-based learning. When contextualising the QTPA to the kindergarten context, we asked preservice teachers to focus on one learning and development area (Communicating), and to plan a sequence of learning experiences to build on language and literacy or numeracy capabilities. Preservice teachers were reminded to draw on the principles and pedagogical practices of the QKLG (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2024) to inform their teaching strategies. We note there was some concern about the QTPA focus on the role of the teacher, which was seen by some to diminish the agency and intentionality of children in their learning (Edwards, 2017; Leggett & Ford, 2013). The study findings highlight the need to strengthen understanding of the practice of intentionality and showcase practical examples of teachers leading playful learning that “embraces children’s knowledge, perspectives, capabilities and interests” (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2024, p. 15) and supports children’s agency and intentionality in their learning. Reflecting teaching practice in kindergarten, the QTPA also needs to enable documentation of emergent learning and teaching within the sequence of learning experiences.

Overall, extending the QTPA to teaching in ECEC settings provided an opportunity to promote the specialist knowledge, skills and professionalism of preservice early childhood teachers in a non-school setting and validated their career choice. Participants were supportive of the pilot and identified a range of perceived benefits for those involved and the broader ECEC sector. Preservice teachers were positive about their learning experience and the value of undertaking the QTPA in a kindergarten setting. The opportunity to undertake the QTPA in their preferred setting engendered confidence and they were able to practise and refine their teaching knowledge and skills in the setting where they planned to commence their teaching career. There were also strong themes of advocacy, spanning advocacy for children and their right to access high-quality ECEC, and advocacy for teachers and teaching in ECEC.

Host teachers and their ECEC organisations recognised shared benefits. These included: confidence that early childhood teachers are well prepared to teach in ECEC; opportunity to observe prospective employees and to attract graduates to work in ECEC, leadership and mentoring capability building within kindergartens and organisations, and promotion of the professional work of teachers in ECEC.

Conclusion

Although there have been previous documentations of the use of performance assessments in early childhood teacher education by individual institutions (Moss & Morrissy, 2018), this is the first Australian pilot of a nationally endorsed TPA in a kindergarten setting with children aged three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half years old, outside of the school context. Based on the success of the pilot, our recently accredited Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) degree now offers all preservice teachers the opportunity to decide whether they will complete their final professional experience and QTPA in a kindergarten or school setting.

The study aligns with the National Children’s Education and Care Workforce Strategy (ACECQA, 2021), in particular, the focus on professional recognition and community perceptions and value of teaching in ECEC. Expanding the QTPA to kindergarten settings was seen to elevate the professional work and standing of teachers in ECEC settings. One of the participating preservice teachers summed this up well:

I think having this as a QTPA option shows us that we are valued. People [who] want to work in this industry are valued, and it’s with just as much a professional teacher as people that want to work in school … it’s nice to feel that you're a professional and that you’re given the same opportunities (PST3).

While this was a small project, involving a small number of preservice teachers, the reach of the project is much greater, extending to the host teachers and their organisations, preservice teachers in our primary and secondary programs and colleagues teaching across our suite of initial teacher education programs. While strengths lie in the potential for this research to inform future higher education preservice teacher programs, we anticipate that others will build on our initial findings in further research with early childhood preservice teachers.

Finally, the study makes clear the negative impact of the omission of ECEC in national teacher education policy (Nuttall, 2018) on building the ECEC workforce, and the need for an inclusive approach that recognises and supports the preparation of highly skilled early childhood teachers who are profession ready (Alexander, 2018), and have opportunity to pursue their chosen teaching career.