If the TFA program is judged to be successful then the 2 dominant factors contributing to its success must surely be, (i) They are indeed "smartypants" (ii) The mode of delivery of the teacher-ed program they are being offered
With respect to (ii)it's definitely what I would call a "Practice-into Theory" model of learning, very different from the "Theory-into Practice" models which dominate pre-service teacher education courses in Australian unis. Apart from Wollongong Uni which offered a P-I-T mode of delivery for about 10% of its intake each year between 1997 and 2006, no other unis seem to have been able to break the tradition of theoretical lectures followed by some field practice. (Wollongong won a National Carrick Award for this program in 2006)

If TFA is shown to produce effective teachers surely we should be thinking about doing something similar on mainstream pre-service teacher ed courses?
Cambo

One point that is often overlooked is that the Teach for Australia program is funded far above teacher education programs in the rest of the country. The clinical approach which is part of the program is something that should be universal, but with current funding levels that is simply impossible in mainstream teacher education programs. In other words, this is a program developed as a political showpiece with no generalisability to the mainstream.

Thank you to Andrew Leigh.

re
"So many teachers applied to the program that recruiters were able to take just the top 20 per cent."

What were the attributes of that top fifth?

The same attributes may be more applicable to one group of teachers than another - for example, the conceptual predominance of curriculum-directed needs of top level maths classes in years 10-12, as opposed to the crucial and often very informal learning processes that must be facilitated in a preschool or primary school setting.

Humans are natural learners. Human (all too human) scholars are highly disciplined learners. I am wondering how the choice of TFA candidates addresses the spectrum of needs across our developmental stages and socioeconomic strata.

Can TFA and the experience it provides can highlight and effect improvements to teacher selection and training? I will wait and see.

So graduates of any other degree are better at teaching than most people with an education degree. Our unis should be deeply ashamed.

I'm the first to sink the boot into the hard headed closed shop attitude that is teaching in Australia, but this is caused by teachers unions that are so frightened of accountability they would rather turn terrorist than accept change.
Having said that i must back our teachers. Despite the quantity of criticism that is levelled at our educationalists every time there is a debate around this subject, they do an outstanding job that is far above most other countries. Our schools are good, our kids complete and handle much more complex concept than we did at their age. We seem to think that just because they don't do what we did at school things must be going backwards. It's called progress.
The standard of teacher education in this country is excellent, i certainly do not want some lawyer teaching my child English. Hell they make a mockery of the "plain english" concept every time they write something. Australian teachers are in demand overseas because they can teach. This is not just getting up with a lesson plan but includes understanding of child psychology, sociology, developmental assessment, multiple teaching techniques, behavioural management and on the list goes.
By the time these other people have finished their studies most of them will have moved on to other jobs or just done a good job of buggering up education. Let's not forget we have a high standard to start with so why compare with the US that has a money based education system like there health system. If your rich you get educated, if your poor well.

Australian schools are money makers not teachers.

TTM