← All domains, the protocol, and the register’s through-lines

Who Teaches English in Australia, and Under What Constraints

Most English is taught by an English specialist. As of 2024, 78% of secondary English teaching in Australia was in-field -- delivered by a teacher with at least one semester of tertiary study in both the subject's content and its pedagogy -- putting English among the three best-staffed curriculum areas nationally, alongside performing arts and science [TCH-01]. The remaining 22% splits between teachers with partial relevant training (5%) and those with none (17%) [TCH-01]. Set against other subjects, that is a comparatively strong position: Mathematics has historically been taught out-of-field around 40% of the time nationally [TCH-11]. Zoomed out to the whole secondary workforce across all subjects, only 53% of teachers taught exclusively in-field in both 2024 and the prior year; 40% taught some subjects outside their specialisation and 7% taught entirely out-of-field, with these rates broadly stable since 2022 [TCH-02]. This is the first fact worth holding onto: out-of-field placement in Australian secondary schools is a structural feature of how staffing works, not a marker of who chooses to teach outside their training. English teachers, specifically, are less exposed to it than most.

Where the numbers turn less comfortable is supply. In 2022, the Australian Government's own modelling projected that national demand for secondary teachers would exceed the supply of new graduates by roughly 4,100 teachers over 2021 to 2025 [TCH-03] -- a projection now historical, but one that shaped hiring and out-of-field placement decisions across the period this evidence describes. Alongside that shortage sits a genuinely unsettled attrition picture. The often-repeated claim that '20% of teachers leave within their first three years' has no verifiable Australian primary source; published estimates of early-career attrition range from roughly 8% to as high as 50% depending on definition and sector, and researchers explicitly say no single agreed national figure exists [TCH-04]. What does exist is intention-to-leave data, which is a different and more limited measure. As at the 2023 Teacher Survey, 14% of the workforce intended to leave within five years; AITSL's most recent 2024-data edition puts near-term intention closer to 20% (4% within one year, 8% within two to four years, 8% at the five-year mark) [TCH-04b]. AITSL itself cautions that stated intention substantially overstates what actually happens -- international evidence suggests a 30-40% intention-to-leave rate corresponds to actual turnover closer to 10-15% over five years [TCH-04b]. The honest summary is that attrition is a real pressure on the system, tracked imperfectly, and reported here without inflating it into a number the primary sources don't support.

The pressure that is well documented is time. A 2022 Grattan Institute survey of 5,442 Australian teachers and school leaders found more than 90% say they do not have enough time to prepare effectively for the core of their job -- classroom teaching itself [TCH-05]. That is not a claim about capability; it is a claim about the hours available for the work, and it applies across primary and secondary, all subjects. Marking load has grown on top of that. In the OECD's TALIS 2024 survey, Australian lower-secondary teachers reported spending an average of 5.7 hours per week marking and correcting student work -- above the OECD average of 4.6 hours, and up 0.7 hours since TALIS 2018 [TCH-06]. Student-to-teacher ratios, meanwhile, are not the constraint they might appear to be: Australia's 2024 national ratio was better (lower) in secondary schools (11.7 students per teacher) than in primary (14.0), with an all-schools average of 12.9 [TCH-10] -- though this ABS measure counts all FTE teaching staff against all FTE students and is not a direct proxy for the number of students actually in front of a teacher in any one classroom [TCH-10]. Put together, the time evidence says the constraint on Australian English teachers is not usually headcount; it is the ratio of preparation and feedback time to the volume of student work that needs a response.

One further constraint sits upstream of the classroom, in teacher training itself. A 2018 NSW survey of 4,306 teachers, including 802 secondary English teachers specifically, found 49% of teachers overall identified as underprepared by their Initial Teacher Education to teach writing, and more than half felt not prepared or only minimally prepared to teach the text structures of imaginative, persuasive and informative writing [TCH-07]. The same survey found 63% of secondary teachers (versus 44% of primary) felt unprepared to teach keyboarding, alongside minimal explicit instruction in that skill in Years 7 to 12 [TCH-08]. This is a system-level ITE finding, not a comment on individual effort -- and the same survey shows secondary English teachers responding to it with more effort than their colleagues in other secondary subjects: English teachers were the strongest outlier in predicted probability of putting high effort into teaching writing (14.6%, against 4.9% for HSIE, 3.3% for Science and 3.1% for the remaining secondary subjects), even though secondary teachers overall put in less effort on writing than primary teachers do (8.2% versus 33.1%) [TCH-09]. That gap between secondary and primary effort on writing is itself well documented elsewhere as the 'Years 7-10 writing slump' -- a structural pattern in how writing instruction is weighted across year levels, not a story about which teachers care. It is also worth noting what the training pipeline does guarantee: every ITE graduate in Australia has been required since 2011 to demonstrate personal literacy and numeracy in the top 30% of the adult population, verified since 2016 by the LANTITE test [TCH-12] -- a floor the profession sets for itself before anyone enters a classroom.

Taken together, this is a picture of a profession working competently inside a system that gives it less than it needs: English is comparatively well-staffed by specialists [TCH-01], but the workforce feeding secondary classrooms is short by design projections that predate today's students [TCH-03], carrying a marking load that has grown past the OECD average [TCH-06], and reporting -- almost unanimously -- that there isn't enough time to prepare [TCH-05]. None of that is a reason to distrust individual teachers; it is the reason capacity is scarce at the level where it matters most: the attention available for any one student's writing. Feedback research explains why that scarcity is costly. A large-scale meta-analysis replicating Hattie's work, spanning 435 studies and more than 61,000 participants, found feedback has a medium overall effect on learning (d=0.48) -- but high-information, elaborated feedback that explains an error and how to fix it (d=0.99) is roughly four times more effective than simple reinforcement or praise (d=0.24) [TUT-14]. That is the kind of feedback a teacher managing 5.7 marking hours a week across an entire class, on top of insufficient preparation time, cannot deliver to every student, every week, no matter how well trained or how in-field they are [TCH-05] [TCH-06]. One-to-one attention outside school does not replace what a good English teacher does in a well-resourced classroom. It supplies the one input the system's own time constraints make structurally scarce: sustained, high-information feedback on a specific student's writing, delivered often enough to compound.

In 2024, 22% of secondary teaching in the English curriculum area in Australia was out-of-field (17% by teachers with no initial teacher education (ITE) qualification in English, 5% with some ITE); 78% of English teaching was in-field. English was one of the three curriculum areas with the highest in-field rates (78-81%), alongside performing arts and science.

Across all curriculum areas, most teachers who taught a secondary subject were teaching in-field. English, performing arts, and science were the curriculum areas with the highest in-field teaching rates, ranging between 78% and 81%.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) · National Trends: Teacher Workforce (Australian Teacher Workforce Data) · AITSL · 2026

Peer-reviewed / causalVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-01

Across the whole secondary teaching workforce (all subjects) in 2024, 53% of teachers taught exclusively in-field (matching their qualification) across that year and the year prior; 40% taught some subjects outside their area of specialisation; 7% taught entirely out-of-field. Rates were broadly stable from 2022 to 2024.

In 2024, slightly over half (53%) of those teaching in secondary schools in the year of completing the Teacher Survey reported they had exclusively taught in-field that year and the year prior. The remaining half taught at least some subjects in areas outside of their specialisation (40%) or they taught entirely out of field (7%). From 2022 to 2024, rates of out-of-field teaching remained fairly stable.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) · National Trends: Teacher Workforce (Australian Teacher Workforce Data) · AITSL · 2026

Peer-reviewed / causalVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-02

Australian Government modelling (2022) projected that, nationally, demand for secondary school teachers would exceed the supply of new graduate teachers by approximately 4,100 teachers over the period 2021 to 2025.

High-level modelling previously undertaken by the Australian Government Department of Education indicates that between 2021 and 2025, the demand for secondary school teachers is projected to exceed the number of new graduate teachers by approximately 4,100 teachers.

Australian Government Department of Education · Issues Paper: Teacher Workforce Shortages · Australian Government Department of Education · 2022

Peer-reviewed / causalVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-03

As at the 2023 Teacher Survey (reported in AITSL's June 2025 ATWD edition), 14% of the Australian teacher workforce reported intending to leave the profession within the next 5 years (up 8 percentage points on the prior survey), and a further 17% intended to leave in 5 or more years. AITSL cautions that reported intention to leave substantially overstates actual attrition: international evidence suggests a 30-40% intention-to-leave rate corresponds to actual turnover closer to 10-15% over 5 years. NOTE: AITSL's subsequent June 2026 edition, using 2024 data, reports a higher combined near-term intention (approximately 20% intending to leave within 5 years: 4% within 1 year + 8% in 2-4 years + 8% at 5 years) - the 14% figure is therefore superseded and should not be presented as the current figure without this context.

The proportion of teachers intending to leave within the next 5 years increased by 8 percentage points to 14%, while those intending to leave in 5 years or more increased by 7 percentage points to 17%. It is important to note that reported intentions to leave the profession may not translate into actual attrition, particularly for those who intend to leave in the long term (Nguyen et al., 2024). International data suggests that rates of reported intention to leave the teaching profession (when asked in yes/no format) of 30-40% may result in actual turnover closer to 10-15% over 5 years (Rasanen et al., 2020).

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) · National Trends: Teacher Workforce (Australian Teacher Workforce Data), June 2025 edition · AITSL · 2025

Peer-reviewed / causalVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-04b

Australian (lower secondary) teachers spent an average of 5.7 hours per week on marking and correcting student work in TALIS 2024, above the OECD average of 4.6 hours and an increase of 0.7 hours since TALIS 2018 (5.0 hours).

Marking/correcting of student work: Australia (Lower sec.) TALIS 2018 Mean 5.0 (S.E. 0.1); TALIS 2024 Mean 5.7 (S.E. 0.2); Change (2024-2018) Dif. 0.7 (S.E. 0.2). OECD average-25: TALIS 2018 Mean 4.4; TALIS 2024 Mean 4.6; Change Dif. 0.2.

Tim Friedman, John Ainley, Wolfram Schulz, Katherine Dix (Australian Council for Educational Research) · TALIS 2024 Australian Report: The Teaching and Learning International Survey · ACER, for OECD TALIS · 2026

Peer-reviewed / causalVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-06

As of 2024, Australia's national student-to-teaching-staff ratio was lower (better) in secondary schools (11.7 students per teacher) than in primary schools (14.0 students per teacher); the all-schools average was 12.9. ABS ratio methodology counts all FTE teaching staff against all FTE students and is not designed as, and should not be treated as, a direct proxy for actual classroom class size.

The student to teaching staff ratio for all schools in 2024 was 12.9 students to one teacher, and was higher in primary schools (14.0 students to one teacher) than secondary schools (11.7 students to one teacher).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) · Schools, 2024 · Australian Bureau of Statistics · 2025

Peer-reviewed / causalVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-10

AITSL's December 2021 National Teacher Workforce Characteristics Report found Mathematics was taught by out-of-field teachers 40% of the time nationally - used here only as a cross-subject comparator to contextualise the English out-of-field rate (TCH-01), not as an English-specific claim.

Mathematics was taught by out-of-field teachers 40% of the time.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) · National Teacher Workforce Characteristics Report (December 2021 ATWD Teacher Workforce Report) · AITSL · 2021

Peer-reviewed / causalVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-11

The Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education (LANTITE), administered by ACER, requires all Initial Teacher Education graduates in Australia to demonstrate personal literacy and numeracy skills within the top 30% of the Australian adult population before graduating; this has been the required standard since 2011, with the LANTITE test itself used to demonstrate the standard since 1 July 2016.

Since 2011, students enrolled in accredited Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programs have been required to demonstrate personal literacy and numeracy skills within the top 30 per cent of the adult population. In 2015, Education Ministers agreed that, from 1 July 2016, the LANTITE test would be used to demonstrate this standard.

Australian Government Department of Education · Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education · Australian Government Department of Education · 2026

Peer-reviewed / causalVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-12

The commonly-repeated claim that '20% of teachers leave the profession within their first 3 years' could not be verified against a primary Australian source. Australian attrition estimates in the peer-reviewed and government literature vary enormously (from around 8% to as high as 50% within the first five years, depending on definition and sector), and multiple sources explicitly say a precise, agreed national figure does not exist.

Although there exists a body of research investigating the reasons behind attrition among teachers (Heffernan et al., 2022), the precise figures pertaining to this phenomenon within the Australian educational context prove challenging to ascertain, with little evidential groundwork concerning teacher turnover or 'moveage' and its ramifications across diverse geographic and socioeconomic settings.

Amy McPherson, Jo Lampert · An analysis of Australian teacher workforce policy: Challenges and opportunities for teacher recruitment and retention · SAGE (journal article) · 2025

Official / governmentVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-04

A 2022 Grattan Institute survey of 5,442 Australian teachers and school leaders found that more than 90% of teachers say they do not have enough time to prepare effectively for classroom teaching.

A Grattan Institute survey of 5,442 Australian teachers and school leaders, conducted for this report, found more than 90 per cent of teachers say they don't have enough time to prepare effectively for classroom teaching - the core of their job.

Grattan Institute (report; survey fielded 21 June - 6 August 2021) · Making time for great teaching: How better government policy can help · Grattan Institute · 2022

Official / governmentVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-05

A 2018 NSW survey of 4,306 teachers (including 802 secondary English teachers specifically) found that 49% of teachers overall identified as underprepared (not prepared or minimally prepared) by their Initial Teacher Education for 'teaching writing', and over half indicated they were not prepared or minimally prepared to teach the text structures of imaginative, persuasive and informative writing.

Forty-nine percent of teachers identified being underprepared (not prepared and minimally prepared) for the task of 'Teaching writing' and over one half of teachers indicated that they were not prepared or minimally prepared to teach the text structures of 'imaginative, persuasive and informative text'.

Claire Wyatt-Smith, Christine Jackson, Vani Borooah, Karen Whalley (Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University) · Summary of the Research Report of the Australian Writing Survey (prepared for NSW Education Standards Authority; main report titled 'How is writing taught in NSW classrooms?') · NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA), commissioning Australian Catholic University / Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education · 2018

Official / governmentVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-07

In the same 2018 NSW Australian Writing Survey, 63% of secondary teachers (versus 44% of primary teachers) indicated they were not prepared by their Initial Teacher Education to teach 'keyboarding', and secondary teachers showed minimal engagement in explicitly teaching keyboarding in Years 7-10 and 11-12 classroom practice.

Sixty-three percent of secondary teachers and 44% of primary teachers indicated that they were not prepared to teach 'Keyboarding' while primary teachers (39%) indicated that they had greater explicit instruction in 'Handwriting' compared to secondary teachers. In classroom writing practices, there is minimal engagement of teachers in Years 7-10 and 11-12 in explicitly teaching 'Keyboarding'.

Official / governmentVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-08

In the 2018 NSW Australian Writing Survey, secondary English teachers were significantly more likely than teachers of other secondary subjects to put high effort into teaching writing (predicted probability 14.6% for English vs 4.9% HSIE, 3.3% Science, 3.1% remaining secondary subjects), and secondary teachers overall were significantly less likely than primary teachers to put high effort into teaching writing (8.2% vs 33.1%).

Subject matters. Compared to teachers of secondary English, teachers of other secondary subjects were significantly less likely to put in high effort into teaching writing - respectively, PP of 14.6%, 4.9%, 3.3%, and 3.1% for English, HSIE, Science, and remaining secondary. Level of schooling matters. Compared to teachers in the secondary years, teachers in the primary years were significantly more likely to put in high effort (33.1% versus 8.2%) into teaching writing.

Official / governmentVerified 2026-08-24#TCH-09

Cite any finding by its anchor — for example #TCH-01 — and the link resolves to the claim, quote and source above. The verification protocol lives on the register’s main page.