As far as I know, the state registration bodies are independent statutory authorities and are not bound by federal deliberations, but the problem is earlier than the recent decisions of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.

AITSL as just another quango. It has no connection with classroom reality, being totally appointed by the federal government, on the advice of the various state governments. In essence, it is a body representing the employers of teachers, thus creating a massive conflict of interest, and it will come to be regarded with contempt by teachers.

State registration authorities, such as the Victorian Institute of Teaching and the Western Australian College of Teaching, are connected with classroom reality because teachers have directly elected representatives on their governing bodies.

The solution is not a separately elected federal body. The solution is a federal body drawn in large measure from the existing elected members of the state and territory registration authorities. Then we might have some faith in any criteria they draw up.

WACOT stopped a move to put unqualified people into classrooms some years ago, and it is possible that some other states’ authorities will also remain committed to professional standards and thus stop the placement of the unqualified pretend teachers of the deplorable Teach for Australia in front of the classes of disadvantaged students, though VIT has caved in already. It is no wonder the totally government-appointed AITSL is “needed” to override the profession as refugees from Blair Labour continue to impose their failed agenda on this country.

Anyone interested in the history of teacher registration and why teachers themselves should actually have a say in it can see http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/414698.aspx?PageIndex=48.

The problem with teachers as I see it is.
The first Problem.
Children go to school at age 5 years. They stay at school for 12 years. Then they leave school & go to University (school) to learn to become a teacher. Four or five years of study then they go to a school to teach.
Do you see the problem. All the teachers from Primary, Secondary & University have only ever known is School & the same with their teachers.
The second Problem.
Course Usability. Most of what is learnt at school has no real use in the real world. (It was once explained to me by a teacher that schools are there only to teach you how to learn.) The Course contents of most courses are not used in the real Business World.
Who puts these courses together? Mostly ex teachers who have never been out in the “Real World” trying to use the course content. They teach Course Content put together by people who have never been out in the real world. The Courses are put together to a formula that bares no relationship to Business methods being used by Business in the real world.
None of that really matters to the teachers. They just teach the Course Content as is laid down in the Book like drones.
Some of these students go on to be employed in Business & find out that everything they learnt at school is absolutely useless & they have to learn their Companies real world methods. Other students go on to the Public Service & implement what they have learnt at school. Just look at the mess we are all in as a result of the Theory of Business as taught at school.

Jayb,

You have no idea what you are talking about. Teachers do not just teach from the book. They develop their own courses. They interact with their students to find the best way of getting material across to different groups. They are creative in their approaches.

The course for beginning reading is totally different from the course for year 12 English. Year 9 English is very different from year 9 woodwork.

Chris C: You have no idea what you are talking about.

15 years as an instructor. Now I am a mentor to wayward children. I guess you're a teacher or an academic, Chris. Yes, teachers do develop their own lesson plans. I had collected a stack a mile high over 15 years.

I have done Business Courses, Computer Courses & Trade Courses. I just happen to be multi skilled. When It was a requirement to the Business Course I set to with gusto, only, on asking my General Manager why none of the course content was used in the firm. His reply, "We have a Business to run & we can't run it on airy fairy ideas that don't work." But it was still a requirement to have a certificate that says I'm qualified to do the work. About 55% of the Courses would never be used. Strangely quite a lot of the Business course concentrated on how to do spin. With the Computer Course. The character teaching had his pet hobby horse. Concentrating on Machine Language, Surds, & other strange things that the average Computer user/mechanic were never going to use in the real world. He would write a hundred lines of code to fix a problem & I would fix it five or six lines & it would be a a more stable solution. I passed all Courses easily but most of what I was taught would never ever be used. Trade Courses are different where most of what you learn is used constantly. (Engineering & Electrical)

cont.
I live behind a school. Recently I wanted clarification on the meaning of a paragraph in the UN Refugee Laws. I asked the Head of the English Department to Parse & Phrase the Paragraph, in support of my position to a Politician. The Head & none of the English teachers could do it, so I went to the old peoples home across the way where I knew I would find an old teacher. I was right & the Politician was wrong & he was cranky & still insists on his interpretation. It’s more convenient. God, I hate being right, again.

I've long held that the Finnish example was the one we should follow? They have the runs on the board and consistently so for some time?
The thing that holds schools back is lack of genuine autonomy and a massive presiding bureaucracy, which quite possibly costs more than all schools combined budget?
The other anchor is I believe, entirely uncooperative unions, which seems to value job placement and retention over outcomes?
I believe genuine autonomy, coupled to comparative apple for apple benchmarking, would result in and or, literally compel best practise outcomes?
I also believe that examinations ought to be overseen by other entities, other than the class teacher; but, ought only be used to evaluate students actual progress and or where any individual might need assistance and or additional coaching; so that he/she doesn't fall behind or fail to learn the basics; that then form the very foundation stone, which the rest of their education is built upon.
These examinations ought to be frequent enough, so as to dispel any fear of examinations, which should only ever be a measuring tool?
Albeit, I believe, that they should be part of a requirement ahead of class advancement, confirming as they ought to, that the student is properly equipped to take full advantage of the higher courses or curriculum.
There is nobody more bored and inattentive; than a student sitting though lessons and or concepts, he/she simply doesn't understand!
If the foundation isn't properly constructed, the rest of a students education may be just so much time wasting difficulty, trying to understand intellectual concepts; that for all practical purposes, might as well be written or taught in a completely foreign language.
Professional Teachers need to refocus on actual outcomes, rather than a spurious log of claims.
That said, de-bureaucratization of Teaching and schools, and or, increasingly rare common sense, ought to free up quite massive funding, that ought to be redirected as improved salaries, essential funding and routinely upgraded skills? Rhrosty.