1.
In March 2001 the Department for Education and
Skills (DfES) commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to undertake a review
to identify the main factors that determine teachers’ and head teachers’
workload, and to develop a programme of practical action to eliminate excessive
workload and promote the most effective use of all resources in schools in
order to raise standards of pupil achievement.
We report to a Steering Group comprised of DfES, the Welsh National
Assembly, the relevant Unions and professional associations, OfSTED, and the
relevant employers, together with the School Teachers Review Body secretariat
as observers. In addition, the group is being joined by two independent
members. Our remit includes both
England and Wales.
2.
This is an Interim Report based on fieldwork in 48
schools. It is intended to set out our
main findings. In the Autumn term we
will identify and test potential solutions with a further 52 schools, in order
to develop a costed Action Plan.
3.
We found that in terms of volume of work, teachers’
and headteachers’ working weeks are more intensive than most other occupations,
with fifty to sixty hours being the norm.
However, when spread out over the year, and allowing for school
holidays, we found that the total volume of work was broadly comparable to
other UK managers and professionals[1], although headteachers still work above the average
level even on that annual basis.
Teachers and headteachers therefore work more intensively during term
times and some parts of the school holiday, but in return enjoy longer periods
away from work than other equivalent occupations. We also compared teachers in England and Wales with teachers in
other countries and found that, where data existed, the volume of work appeared
similar. We should note, however, that
both these types of comparisons were difficult to make due to different methods
of collecting data.
4.
We found that workload issues went much wider than
simply total hours worked. Many
teachers felt they were not in control of their work, that it caused them
stress, and that they resented some tasks, especially those carried out at
weekends. However, many others, while
working similar hours, enjoyed their work and found it stimulating and
productive; we found that age difference was a factor in some cases, but that
school leadership and management also appeared to have a major influence on teacher
attitudes to work.
5.
We found that teachers recognised a changing
profession, with greater accountability and higher expectations. In general, they welcomed this. However, they did not feel that they were
adequately supported to meet these challenges, notwithstanding the additional
resources provided in recent years.[2]
6.
We identified five main types of issues underlying
excessive workload:
·
Teachers undertaking tasks that could be carried
out by other staff – especially routine and administrative tasks, but also
technical tasks (e.g. ICT maintenance, site management) and those relating to
other specialists such as Education Welfare Officers. In addition the traditions of schooling include many practices
that from a wider perspective might appear inefficient
·
Teachers inadequately supported by ICT, in spite of
the recent and significant investments that have been made. There are many ways in which technology
could help support teachers; in some schools they are already in place, but in
many they are not. In particular the
job almost always requires considerable work from home but teachers do not have
the access to ICT, and ICT support, that other occupations with such patterns
would expect. There is too much
needless re-invention of the same resources and approaches by different
teachers – sometimes within the same school
·
Teachers finding insufficient time to manage the
staff and other resources at their disposal, and to manage their own planning;
and feeling they have insufficient ownership of, and access to, high quality
professional development. In addition
our fieldwork suggests that teachers may benefit from additional training in
management of staff and other resources in order to ensure they make the best
use of them
·
Headteachers and senior managers not always
appearing to see teacher workload as part of their responsibility, and wide
variations in the approaches to managing teacher workload between different
schools. In addition, teachers
identified many tasks they found burdensome as apparently arising from school
level practices
·
Teachers perceiving a lack of sufficient thought
about the impact on teachers’ and headteachers’ workload on the part of DfES
and the various national and local agencies.
Although there is evidence that some initiatives are piloted to
establish their impact on teacher time, there are exceptions to this. In addition, teachers felt that arrangements
for introducing change tend to work against schools as strategic bodies in that
they were sometimes provided with inadequate notice or have ad hoc approaches to guidance and
training.
7.
Underlying these issues was a wider question about
finding the right balance between accountability and trust – and a related
issue about professional confidence.
Teachers and headteachers in some schools perceived that they were
mistrusted, and therefore that they were required to document every decision,
every lesson and most interactions with pupils. It is not clear that this perception is in line with the actual
requirements of central government and other agencies. But where this feeling
manifested itself, it led to a lot of record keeping – much of it, we believe,
unlikely to be looked at by anyone – and also undermined attempts to reassure
teachers that they are valued and regarded as professionals. Other schools,
however, perceived greater scope for local decision making, and as a result
seemed able to create more manageable systems.
8.
In Phase Two we will identify and appraise options
for providing solutions to these issues.
It is too early in this Interim Report to be specific about these, but
the broad areas where we believe such solutions may be found are:
·
Making best use of existing or potential future
support staff
·
Making the best use of ICT resources
·
Exploring the distribution of teacher time across
the working week and year
·
Exploring the role of headteachers in managing
schools to make the best use of all resources, including improving work-life
balance for teachers
·
Making the best use of the physical environment,
both inside the school and in terms of flexible working in different locations
·
Redesigning school processes in order to remove
unnecessary tasks, or enable them to be carried out by staff other than
teachers, and/ or support them better using ICT
·
Exploring the role of central and local government
and associated agencies in ensuring the best support for, monitoring of, and
communication with schools
·
Identifying the right levers to secure these
changes.
9.
We will undertake this Phase Two identification and
appraisal through a mix of:
·
Visiting schools to see existing good practice and
to identify likely future developments.
This will be an opportunity in particular to explore how some schools
have been able to negotiate some of the barriers to reducing workload
·
Detailed interviews with teachers, headteachers
and, in particular, with classroom and learning support assistants, IT
technicians, business managers or bursars, senior administrators, learning
mentors and a range of other specialists
·
Testing out through discussions with schools and
others a range of hypothetical solutions
·
Convening a Seminar to discuss issues and solutions
with key agencies, members of the Steering Group and a number of teachers and
headteachers
·
Discussion of a draft Action Plan with the schools
that took part in the Study, the Steering Group and a selection of teachers,
headteachers and other staff who have not previously been involved in the work,
in order to gauge the likely impact on the sector as a whole.
10.
Through this we will propose what we believe to be
the optimal set of solutions and will develop and test a costed Action Plan,
together with an assessment of the impact of implementing it.
Executive
summary
1.In March 2001
the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) commissioned
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to undertake a review to identify the main factors
that determine teachers’ and head teachers’ workload, and to develop a
programme of practical action to eliminate excessive workload and promote the
most effective use of all resources in schools in order to raise standards of
pupil achievement. We report to a
Steering Group comprised of DfES, the Welsh National Assembly, the relevant
Unions and professional associations, OfSTED, the relevant employers and two
independent members, together with the School Teachers Review Body as
observers. Our remit includes both England and Wales.
1.This is an
Interim Report based on fieldwork in 48 schools. It is intended to set out our main findings. In the Autumn term we will identify and test
potential solutions with a further 52 schools, in order to develop a costed
Action Plan.
1.We found that
in terms of volume of work, teachers and headteachers work more intensive weeks
than most other occupations, with 50 to 60 hours being the norm. However, when spread out over the year, and
allowing for the work teachers and headteachers undertake in the holidays, we
found that the total volume of work was broadly comparable to other UK managers
and professionals[3], although headteachers in particular still work
significantly above the average level, even on that annual basis. Teachers and headteachers therefore work
more intensively during term times and some parts of the school holiday, but in
return enjoy longer periods away from work than other equivalent
occupations. We also compared teachers
in England and Wales with teachers in other countries and found that, where
data existed, the volume of work appeared similar, although a little
higher. We should note, however, that
both these types of comparisons were difficult to make due to different methods
of collecting data.
1.We found that
workload issues went much wider than simply total hours worked. Many teachers felt they were not in control
of their work, that it caused them stress, and that they resented some tasks,
especially those carried out at weekends.
However, many others, while working similar hours, enjoyed their work
and found it stimulating and productive; we found that, as well as age
differences, school leadership and management appeared to have a major influence
on teacher attitudes to work.
1.We found that
teachers recognised a changing profession, with greater accountability and
higher expectations. In general, they
welcomed this. However, they did not
appear to be adequately supported to meet these challenges, notwithstanding
that DfES has provided us with figures to show that expenditure per pupil has
risen since 1997-1998 by £540 to £3,520 in 2001-02.
1.We identified
five main types of issues underlying excessive workload:
·Teachers undertaking tasks that could be carried
out by other staff – especially routine and administrative tasks, but also
technical tasks (e.g. ICT maintenance, site management) and those relating to
other specialists such as Education Welfare Officers. In addition the traditions of schooling include many practices
that from a wider perspective might appear inefficient
·Teachers inadequately supported by ICT, in spite of
the recent and significant investments that have been made. There are many ways in which technology
could help support teachers; in some schools they are already in place, but in
many they are not. In particular the
job almost always requires considerable work from home but teachers do not have
the access to ICT, and ICT support, that other occupations with such patterns
would expect. There is too much
needless re-invention of the same resources and approaches by different
teachers – sometimes within the same school
·Teachers finding insufficient time to manage the
staff and other resources at their disposal, and to manage their own planning;
and feeling they have insufficient ownership of, and access to, high quality
professional development. In addition
our fieldwork suggests that teachers may benefit from additional training in management
of staff and other resources in order to ensure they make the best use of them
·Headteachers and senior managers not always
appearing to see teacher workload as part of their responsibility, and wide
variations in the approaches to managing teacher workload between different
schools. In addition, teachers
identified many tasks they found burdensome as apparently arising from school
level practices
·Teachers perceiving a lack of sufficient thought about the impact on teachers’ and
headteachers’ workload on the part of DfES and the various national and local
agencies. Although there is evidence
that some initiatives are piloted to
establish their impact on teacher time, there are exceptions to this. In addition, arrangements for introducing
change tend to work against schools as strategic bodies in that they sometimes
provide inadequate notice or have ad hoc approaches to guidance and training.
1.Underlying
these issues was a wider question about finding the right balance between
accountability and trust. Teachers and
headteachers in some schools perceived that they were mistrusted, and therefore
that they were required to document every decision, every lesson and most
interactions with pupils. Where this
was the case, it not only led to a lot of record keeping – much of it, we
believe, unlikely to be looked at by anyone – but also undermined attempts to
reassure teachers that they are valued and regarded as professionals. Other
schools, however, perceived greater scope for local decision making, and as a
result seemed able to create more manageable systems.
1.In Phase Two
we will identify and appraise options for providing solutions to these
issues. It is too early in this Interim
Report to be specific about these, but the broad areas where we believe such
solutions will be found are:
·Making best use of existing or potential future
support staff
·Making the best use of ICT resources
·Exploring the distribution of teacher time across
the working week and year
·Exploring the role of headteachers in managing
schools to make the best use of all resources, including improving worklife
balance for teachers
·Making the best use of the physical environment,
both inside the school and in terms of flexible working in different locations
·Redesigning school processes in order to remove
unnecessary tasks; or enable them to be carried out by staff other than
teachers, including administrative and specialist staff; and/ or support them
better using ICT
·Exploring the role of central and local government
and associated agencies in ensuring the best support for, monitoring of, and
communication with, schools
·Identifying the right levers to secure these
changes.
1.We will
undertake this Phase Two identification and appraisal through a mix of:
·Visiting schools to see existing good practice and
to identify likely future developments
·Detailed interviews with teachers, headteachers
and, in particular, with classroom and learning support assistants, IT
technicians, business managers or bursars, senior administrators, learning
mentors and a range of other specialists
·Testing out through discussions with schools and
others a range of hypothetical solutions
·Convening a national Seminar to discuss issues and
solutions with key national agencies, members of the Steering Group and a
number of teachers and headteachers
·Consulting on a draft Action Plan with the schools
that took part in the Study, the Steering Group and a selection of teachers,
headteachers and other staff who have not previously been involved in the work,
in order to gauge the likely impact on the sector as a whole.
1.Through this
we will propose what we believe to be the optimal set of solutions and will
develop and test a costed Action Plan, together with an assessment of the
impacts of implementing it.
0. Introduction
0.1
In March 2001 the then Department for Education and Employment Skills (DfEES) commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC) to undertake a review to identify the main factors that determine
teachers’ and head teachers’ workload, and to develop a programme of practical
action to eliminate excessive workload and promote the most effective use of
all resources in schools in order to raise standards of pupil achievement. Our remit includes both England and Wales.
0.2
We were asked to report to a Steering Group. The full membership is attached at Annex
A. In summary it comprisesd:
·
DfES and , OFSTED and ESTYN
· The relevant teacher, headteacher and other staff unions and associations
· Employers’ representatives
·
National Assembly for Wales
· Two independent members from the private sector are joining the group
· The School Teachers Pay Review Body (STRB) secretariat in an observer status.
0.3 In May 2001 that group authorised our detailed specification for carrying out the work. In summary we proposed to carry out the work through:
· Fieldwork in 100 schools, of which 82 were to be representative of schools in England and Wales as a whole and 18 were to be nominated as having good practice
· A Seminar to involve a range of organisations that have a key role in helping to identify and deliver solutions
· A short review of the medium term impact of a previous study to reduce bureaucratic burdens on teachers on schools that took part in it
· A benchmarking review to compare teacher hours in England and Wales with other occupations, and with teachers internationally.
0.4 There are two phases of work. In Phase One we visited 48 schools and produced this Interim Report, which sets out our initial findings and the main issues they point towards. In Phase Two we will visit a further 52 schools in order to undertake an identification and appraisal of the options to provide solutions, and develop an Action Plan to implement them.
0.5 The starting point for our work has been the Teachers’ Workloads Diary Surveys carried out for the STRB by the Office of Management Economics (OME) [4]. Summary tables from that study are reproduced at Annex B.
0.6 Our Phase One fieldwork in the first 48 schools allowed us to explore and extend the available evidence on hours worked, and to investigate the nature of work, the drivers for different tasks, and how issues of excessive workload might be understood and tackled. A statistical analysis of the results of our fieldwork in the first 48 schools is attached at Annex C.
0.7 Annexes B and C between them therefore provide the statistical evidence base for our report. These data are supported by qualitative findings, views and good practice examples, which are included where relevant in the main body of the report. In addition, we carried out an evaluation of the progress made by the 14 schools that took part in our earlier study to investigate ways that schools could review and reduce bureaucracy[5]. A short account of that review is attached at Annex D.
0.8 We should like to thank a number of parties for their help with the study so far:
· The 48 schools we have visited so far, and the remaining schools who have agreed to take part next term. We are grateful for the staff time made available for our research. We could not, of course, have undertaken the study without it
· The external members of our research team nominated by DfES, NUT, NASUWT, NAHT and SHA who have worked alongside us in our fieldwork and contributed to our discussions and conclusions
· The Steering Group members and their organisations for their active participation in the work
· The School Teachers Review Body, Office of Management Economics and BRMB International for making available and explaining the data gathered from previous diary based workload studies, which form the basis for much of our work
· The wide range of other organisations that have supported our study.
0.9 Whilst we have acknowledged the help and support of the fieldworkers and Steering Group members from a range of organisations, the views in this report are those of PricewaterhouseCoopers. It will be for the Steering Group members to decide how to receive and take forward the reports we produce.
1. Overview of teacher and headteacher workloads
Introduction
1.1 This section provides an overview of how teachers and headteachers spend their time. We discuss the total time spent by teachers and headteachers throughout the year, and the components of the total time in terms of:
· A typical working week
· Work during the school holidays
· Different patterns of work in the different terms of the year
· Additional work in response to initiatives and other changes
· Wider workload issues.
1.2 We draw conclusions about what this means for teacher and headteacher workload and how this compares with other professions, and with teachers internationally.
1.3 In doing this we make use of previous research by the Office of Manpower Economics (OME) for the STRB, and of our own fieldwork. Statistical information from OME’s work is at Annex B, and data from our own work are at Annex C.
A typical working week
1.4 Previous studies by OME have sought to quantify the time teachers spend on different tasks in the course of a “typical” working week, using a week in March which consultation revealed to be regarded as reasonably representative. Three such studies have been carried out, giving an indication of how workload has changed over a six-year period. Their figures are replicated in the following table. The hours given seek to capture all work-related activity, including work before and after the formal school day, at home and at the weekend.
Table 1.1 Hours worked in a “typical” week: data from previous diary studies
1.5 The main findings from this are that:
·
In 1994 primary and secondary school classroom teachers
worked around 49 hours a week. Special
school classroom teachers worked a little less,
around 46.5 hours a week.
Since then, primary school classroom teacher hours have increased by
around 34 hours to 52 hours a week, and
secondary by around 2.5 hours to some 50.5 hours a week. Special school teachers continue to work a
little less but the gap has almost disappeared
· Primary headteacher hours have increased from around 54.5 hours in 1994 to around 58 hours in 2000, while secondary headteacher hours have remained relatively static at around 60 hours
· In primary schools the relationship between classroom teachers, deputy heads and head teachers has remained quite consistent, with deputy heads and headteachers working around 7% and 11% longer than classroom teachers respectively
· In secondary schools, heads of department and deputy heads have worked on average around 4% and 14% longer than classroom teachers respectively. Headteachers worked for 24% longer than classroom teachers in 1994, but this had decreased to 18% more by 2000.
1.6
We investigated whether the increases in hours worked for most
types of staff set out above were driven by an increase in the number of pupils
compared to the number of teachers in the school system, or whether the amount
of work undertaken per pupil had increased[6]. It was not apparent that the increases were as a
result of increased pupil/teacher ratios.
However, longer hours have coincided with increased resources generally
in recent years. DfES figures indicate
that real terms revenue funding has gone up by £540 per pupil between 1997-98
and 2001-02; and capital investment has risen from £683 million in 96-97 to £2.2
billion in 01-02. Our conclusion was that it is the amount of work
per pupil that has driven the increase, in particular increased time spent on
planning and preparation.[7]
1.7
In our own Teacher Workload Study, we have looked
in greater depth at a smaller sub-sample of the schools used for the 2000 OME survey.
The school visits were of necessity carried out during a different
period of the school year (May to July rather than March) when cyclical
pressures were likely to be different.
When we asked about total hours worked, the objective was not primarily
to confirm or update the previous OME quantitative findings, but to ensure that
there was no significant mismatch between the schools we were now looking at in
more detail and the original OME figures.In our own
Teacher Workload Study we have been able to confirm OME’s figures. Our data for total hours worked each week by
school type and for different pay scale levels are shown in the two tables
below.
|
Teacher Type |
Primary |
Secondary |
Special |
|
Head Teacher |
59.0 |
64.3 |
58.0 |
|
– Hours spent teaching |
5.4 |
1.4 |
3.2 |
|
All other
teaching staff |
54.5 |
55.3 |
50.8 |
|
– Hours spent teaching |
21.8 |
19.1 |
17.8 |
|
|
Newly Qualified Teacher |
Main pay scale |
Management points |
Upper |
Leadership |
|
|
Hours per week |
53.4 |
54.1 |
54.1 |
53.3 |
58.5 |
|
|
Hours spent teaching |
19.4 |
20.8 |
20.1 |
19.9 |
15.6 |
|
1.8
Our data for total hours worked each week by school
type and different pay scale levels are shown in the two tables above. They confirm that our findings can still be
related back to the OME data from March 2000.
Whilst there are some numerical rises compared with the OME data, and it
was also the perception of most of those interviewed that workload had
increased over this period, none of the changes is statistically significant. Whilst there was a perception for most of those we
interviewed that workload had indeed increased since March 2000 when the OME
data were collected, the numerical rises shown are not in fact statistically
significant. In general,
interviewees thought the perceived rise was a result of new central government
initiatives, which we discuss in more detail below.
Work in the school holidays
1.9 We found in our study that around 95% of the teacher and headteacher workforce undertake some form of holiday working. The following table shows the total average hours worked for headteachers and teachers in the different school holiday periods.
|
|
Primary |
|
Secondary |
|
Special |
|
|
Teacher |
Head-teacher |
Teacher |
Head-teacher |
Teacher |
|
Mid-Term breaks
(total for all three breaks) (Hours) |
50 |
42 |
53 |
82 |
37 |
|
Easter |
20 |
15 |
19 |
25 |
12 |
|
Christmas |
12 |
9 |
13 |
24 |
10 |
|
Summer |
34 |
34 |
36 |
65 |
48 |
|
Total annual
holiday working |
116 |
100 |
121 |
196 |
107 |
Special School headteacher figures omitted
due to low sample size
1.10 The above figures are of course averages. The hours worked by individual teachers varied enormously. Around 5% of teachers said they never worked during the holiday periods, many teachers claimed to work more than 100 hours and some for up to 300 hours. The nature of tasks completed during holiday periods varied from teacher to teacher, however, a core list of tasks can be identified: marking, lesson planning (short, medium and long term), assessment and general classroom environment (typically display work/tidying), writing reports for parents, and researching and undertaking school visits. Work during holiday periods took place both at home and in school. A significant proportion of teachers meet during the holiday periods in order to carry out group planning. We will explore the implications of this in later sections.
1.11 Additionally,
we asked headteachers to estimate the amount of holiday work they believed
teachers undertook. As with other data,
detailed figures are in Annex C. We
found that headteachers usually estimated a significantly lower figure for
teacher holiday work than teachers did.
This could be explained either by headteachers being unaware of the
extent of teacher holiday work, or by headteachers making a more accurate
assessment. Our judgement
is that in general the former is the more probable explanation.
Variations over a school year
1.12 The nature of work in schools is cyclical over a year, with peaks and troughs relating to examinations, school productions, reports to parents and other activities. The following table shows the typical “cyclical” variations over a year. Percentages indicate the percentage of teachers for whom this task varied over the year. Percentages total more than 100 because teachers listed several different tasks each.
|
Increase Workload |
% |
Decrease Workload |
% |
|
Exam related activity |
74 |
Reduced teaching |
3 |
|
Report writing |
70 |
Reduced planning |
2 |
|
Parents evening |
48 |
Reduced admin load |
2 |
|
School plays |
37 |
Reduced work due to
school trips/exchange |
1 |
|
Gathering information |
20 |
Reduced staff
management |
1 |
|
Increased planning |
19 |
Other reductions |
27 |
|
Higher teaching load |
19 |
|
|
|
End of term
celebration |
19 |
|
|
|
SEN reports/IEP
writing |
16 |
|
|
|
Increased staff
management |
11 |
|
|
|
Increased
administration |
11 |
|
|
|
Increased strategic
work |
7 |
|
|
|
Increased marking |
5 |
|
|
|
Increased professional
development |
1 |
|
|
|
Other increases in
workload |
3 |
|
|
1.13 We
sought to identify whether these cyclical variations had any net impact on
total work carried out by teachers in the course of a year. The figures
above indicate that teachers identified variations leading to an increase much
more than those leading to a decrease. Against that,
however, In general we found that peak periods
of work for some tasks were balanced by a commensurate reduction of others (for
example, making room for Christmas productions through reduced setting of work
requiring marking). ). We
also found that where this was not possible, holiday periods were used as an
overspill for term-time work (for example, report writing in the summer
half-term break) and therefore already included in our “holiday working”
figures. In addition,
where teachers identified a perceived increase since the OME study in March,
they tended to identify initiatives (see below), rather than
a cyclical pattern, as being the cause. On balance, therefore, we do not
believe that cyclical variations make a significant net difference to the total
work carried out over the 39 weeks of the usual school year.
1.14 We found a different pattern to cyclical work between primary and secondary schools. Primary school teachers tended to find their workload increased towards the end of each term (mainly Christmas/Summer) largely due to the volume of ‘celebratory’ activities, together with report writing and SATs for teachers of some year groups. The driver for the “celebratory” workload was typically the school, and the teachers themselves, driven in turn by the desire to create a school/community ethos. At secondary phase many teachers cited the examination period in combination with coursework responsibilities as a time when workload was particularly high; clearly the driver behind this is the necessity for pupils to be tested. There was a perception at secondary level (especially where there was post 16 provision) that examination demands had increased which had put additional pressure into this area.
Other work
1.15 In addition to routine changes in working hours over the cycle of a school year, we investigated whether there are increases or decreases as a result of responding to change. The most commonly named events of this kind are shown below. Percentages show the percentage of teachers that indicated this initiative. They total more than 100 percent because many teachers listed more than one initiative.
|
Initiative |
Frequency (%) |
|
Inspection-related |
28 |
|
ICT related initiatives |
25 |
|
National Curriculum |
21 |
|
Literacy |
18 |
|
Numeracy |
18 |
|
AS-A2 |
14 |
|
Performance Management |
13 |
|
Threshold |
13 |
|
Key skills |
10 |
|
EIC |
7 |
|
Beacon school |
5 |
|
EAZ related |
5 |
|
SEN related |
4 |
1.16 Teachers and headteachers often supported the initiatives listed above in themselves, but said they brought with them a large volume of training and preparation. The hours teachers spent on this activity varied considerably. Some – especially NQTs already trained in the new initiative – did not feel they had caused them any additional work. At the other extreme, some teachers calculated they had spent over 100 hours implementing new government initiatives in the course of a year; although the extent to which this would contribute to an increase in total annual hours is unclear. Activities contributing to this workload would include re-writing schemes of work and documenting the changes made in departmental or subject handbooks, undertaking training, preparing new resources and planning meetings to discuss implementation and ongoing evaluation. Sometimes, but not always, supply cover was available to do this. Even then, teachers pointed out there was additional work associated with supply cover. Teachers also commented on the amount of reading material that accompanies new initiatives. Some teachers felt that there was insufficient paid time to assimilate and implement new government initiatives.
1.17 Responses from teachers in Wales to questions about initiatives showed that new initiatives also impact on their workload, with new post 16 requirements mentioned in particular. However, one primary headteacher in Wales commented:
“We tend
to get initiatives after our English counter-parts. For example we haven’t had to introduce performance management –
I am sure we will in time – but when we do it will have been tested in England
and it will be a better scheme for it.”
1.18 Many
teachers in our own study felt that workload significantly altered depending
where the school was in the inspection cycle.
Almost all teachers who have recently undergone an OFSTED/Estyn
inspection reported working additional hours in the lead up period to
inspection. The amount of hours worked
for inspection purposes varied widely; typically teachers suggested approximately
20 hours of additional work. There were
some teachers who reported ly worked over
70 hours, and one who worked over 100 hours during the 12 week notice period
before OFSTED inspection. A number of
teachers in Wales indicated significant pressure from the lengthy notice period
provided before an Estyn inspection (with one calculating 220 hours additional
work over the year), and suggested that therefore the long notice period might
be counter-productive in terms of workload. Although teachers cited the
inspection as the driver of workload, they also said that often it was internal
pressures in the build up to inspection that brought about an increase in
workload.
Evening, home and weekend work
1.19 The OME studies found that on average full-time teachers carried out between 9-11% of their work at weekends and 15-18% before the formal school day starts or after 6pm on weekdays, with evening and weekend work therefore accounting for around 25% of total working time.
1.20 Our
own work confirmed that teachers undertake the profession
requires significant home, evening and weekend working. Many teachers indicated that they worked at
the weekend as they “had no choice” but also cited the lack of interruptions
and the clear space of time afforded to them at the weekend as reasons for
using this time to work. Lack of space
and facilities was the most common physical restriction identified by teachers,
followed by lack of ICT access and limited opening times of schools. Against that, where they existed,
home-working policies and flexible opening times were positive factors to
support flexible working.
1.21 The data and qualitative views taken together indicate that this is a profession that relies on a considerable amount of work taking place outside the school building and normal working day; but that there is scope to equip teachers and headteachers to make more effective and flexible use of such time. Another inference is that the school environment, and the structure of the school day, are barriers to teachers getting more of their work done in the school day.
Non-contact time
1.22 The
figures we collected for current entitlement
to, and receipt of, non-contact time (i.e. timetabled
free periods during the school day), for newly qualified teachers, and teachers
on the main pay scale (no management allowancespoints)
and main pay scale (with management pointsallowances)
are shown below, in hours per week.
|
|
Primary |
|
Secondary |
|
||||
|
|
Entitled to |
Received |
Entitled to |
Received |
||||
|
Newly Qualified
Teacher |
2.8 |
2.0 |
4.8 |
4.0 |
|
|||
|
Main Pay Scale |
1.2 |
0.8 |
4.1 |
3.2 |
|
|||
|
Management Points |
3.1 |
3.1 |
4.7 |
3.2 |
|
|||
Figures for other categories not shown due to small sample sizes
1.23 This shows that whilst Newly Qualified Teachers, secondary school teachers and teachers with management responsibility receive two or more hours of non-contact time each week, primary school teachers with no management duties receive less than one hour. Often this is in practice blocked, giving a half-day each term or half-term, or takes place while other staff are in assembly. As with other figures, these are averages, as practices varied in different schools. Where primary school teachers received more time than this we found it was very popular with teachers, and thought to be an effective strategy by teachers and headteachers alike.
1.24 Where
the timetabled
entitlement to non-contact time was
not received we found it was usually due to the need to cover for other staff,
who were absent due to illness, to attend courses or to undertake particular
duties.
Variations for different types of teacher
1.25 We begin by describing the main numerical findings from the OME study, and then discuss our own qualitative findings. OME found the following:
· Gender: there was no clear pattern between male and female teachers
· Age and experience: classroom teachers under 25 years old, and those in their first two years of teaching, in secondary schools, but not primary schools, appear to work longer hours than older and more experienced colleagues
·
Year group and subject: year six in primary school, and
years 12 and 13 in secondary, appear to be associated with longer average
hours. There was little difference in
relation to subjects taught in secondary schools, although PE appeared to be
associated with the highest average hours.
This may seem surprising given the discussion about the impact of
initiatives above – which might lead us to expect a peak at Key
Stage 3 also – but it is important to recognise that
restate that OME figures are for a
single week in March 2000, and
therefore do not reflect initiatives impacting at other times, or cyclical
changes
·
Part-time teachers.
There are difficulties interpreting OME data for this category as the
various contractual arrangements lead to relatively low numbers in different
sample groups. It appears that those
primary classroom teachers engaged to work half-time work, on average, for 64% of average hours worked by colleagues0.64 FTE;
and secondary classroom teachers work around 0.54% of the average FTE. In other
words, teachers employed to work for half time work for longer than that in
practice.
1.26 We observed no significant differences in workload between genders. We spoke to a number of part-time teachers. It is worthy of note that a small number of teachers had reduced their teaching time to part-time hours in order to manage their workloads better.
1.27 Younger teachers, especially NQTs, tended to be less concerned about the volume of work than their more experienced colleagues. Indeed teachers in this category reported an expectation that their workload would be high, which was usually qualified by the hope that it would reduce when they became more experienced.
Variations for different types of school
1.28 As in the section above, we first set out OME’s numerical findings, followed by our own qualitative ones. OME found the following in terms of school context, resourcing and organisation:
· Pupils with Statements of SEN and school in areas of social deprivation: neither of these factors appeared to affect the total hours worked
· Classroom support: there was no clear link between additional classroom support and reduced teacher hours
· School organisation: neither school size nor class size (in primary schools) appeared to affect the total hours.
1.29 In our own study, we found that while 82% of schools had Investor in People status, only 12% claimed to have an active work-life balance policy or to think strategically about workload issues. Many Headteachers appeared never to have considered their staff’s workload as an issue for them to be concerned with.
1.30 We noted that schools with relatively large numbers of support staff had teacher workloads that appeared better focused on teaching and learning, although our study, and the previous diary studies, did not find an associated decrease in overall hours worked.
Total hours worked in a year
1.31 Adding together the hours worked in a working week, with hours worked during school holiday periods, we found that annual hours range from 2122 hours a year for a secondary teacher to 2567 hours a year for a secondary headteacher. Figures for all categories are in the following table.
|
Occupation |
Average weekly hours (OME 2000) |
Average total holiday hours (PWC 2001) |
Total annual hours (includes holiday working) |
|
Primary schools: |
|||
|
Headteachers |
58.9 |
100 |
2397 |
|
Deputy
heads |
56.2 |
116* |
2306 |
|
Classroom
teachers |
52.8 |
116 |
2174 |
|
Secondary schools: |
|||
|
Headteachers |
60.8 |
196 |
2567 |
|
Deputy
heads |
58.6 |
121* |
2406 |
|
Heads of
faculty |
52.9 |
121* |
2184 |
|
Classroom
teachers |
51.3 |
121 |
2122 |
|
All Managers (ONS) |
46.3 |
- |
2222 |
|
All Professionals (ONS) |
44.0 |
- |
2112 |
* Separate figures for deputy and heads of faculty holiday hours not available, so averages for all teachers have been used.
- – Holiday hours for all managers and all professionals not collected by ONS, assumed to be zero for this study
1.32 On
the basis of these data we carried out a comparison of teacher and headteacher
hours against other occupations. We
found that the hours teachers and headteachers worked in a working week are
much higher than the average hours worked by other managers and professionals,
who work on average 46.3 and 44.0 hours a week[8]. Over the course of a year, total hours
worked were closer to average annual work for all managers (who work on average
2222 hours a year) and professionals (2112 hours a year), due to teachers and
headteachers benefiting from significantly longer
school holidays,
even allowing for the holiday working described above. However, even on this annual basis, the
hours worked by headteachers in particular remain
significantly above the average. Given that the
definition of “Managers” includes a wide range of jobs, with the role of headteacher towards the
upper end in terms of responsibility, this may not be surprising.
1.33 We
also compared teachers in England and Wales with teachers in other countries
and found that, where data existed, the volume of work appeared similar, although a little higher[9]. We should note, however, that comparisons
with other occupations, and comparisons with teachers internationally, were
made difficult by the different methods of collecting data. A full explanation of our approach to undertaking
these comparisons, and our detailed analysis and findings, are at Annex E.
Wider workload issues
1.34 There are some overarching, wider workload issues. The first of these is the issue of the teacher as a “free good”. By this we mean that additional teacher time often appears cost free, at the level of the individual school. This results in decisions which, viewed for the system as a whole, are inefficient, but viewed from the perspective of the school, appear rational. For example:
·
Employing administrative staff to undertake teacher
administrative tasks appears on paper to save the difference between the cost
of a classroom assistant or clerical officer’s time and the cost of a teacher’s
time. In practice, for the school,
additional administrative time is “real” because it must be purchased and is
rarely offset by reduced teacher salary costs; but additional teacher time is
free [Max to provide text on extra funding for support
staff]
· Some teachers have put it to us that there is an increasing trend for examination boards to see teachers as a “free” resource to undertake more assessment within schools. Whilst we need in Phase Two of our work to understand more fully the current picture it does seem that teachers are increasingly undertaking work which previously would have been carried out by an external examiner
·
Teachers and headteachers perceive that the DfES and
associated agencies do not need to cost additional teacher time when
introducing guidance which is likely to result in additional work, again giving
the impression that teacher time has no cost.. They believe that this practice continues up
to and including recent initiatives, with the introduction of Key Stage 3
numeracy and literacy given to us as examples [although in practice DfES says
that ….Max to provide DfES view].
1.35 While it is true for any particular example given in isolation that such teacher time is free, it may not be if the resulting pressures lead to lower morale, increased stress and sick leave and lower retention rates, as some suggest it does.
1.36 A second overarching issue is the way in which the profession has changed, with greater accountability for the performance of individual pupils, and increasing expectations from government and parents. While few would disagree with the desirability of these changes, they imply a need for greater time for wider professional reflection, and greater support from the range of resources such as ICT, and the range of support and specialist staff and leadership. We will discuss throughout this report views we received that such support is not yet adequately in place in many schools.
1.37 A third overarching issue is that workload issues cannot be discussed only in terms of the length of time worked. We were struck by the differences in attitude to work in different schools. We found many examples of motivated teachers who were very happy to be teaching, but who were nevertheless working 60 or more hours a week. One such teacher commented,
“I have no problem working at the weekend;
it’s fundamentally part of the job.
Often extra-curricular activities have to take place at the weekend,
especially if you are working on a school production. The pupils really enjoy it and learn a lot – I really enjoy it
too.”
1.38 Similarly we found many examples of teachers working similar, or shorter hours than this, who were unhappy, feeling under undue pressure and that there was never enough time to do a good job. One Head of Science commented that
“All my career I have looked forward to –
and I mean that – sitting down quietly on a Sunday morning and preparing my
teaching performances – including devising interesting ways to put experiments
and other points across. Now, I’m still
working every Sunday but it’s drudgery – reports and notes and other paperwork
– and the sad thing is that I don’t get any time to do the important
preparation that I used to enjoy doing on Sundays.”
1.39 It is important also in this context to recognise the extent to which each lesson taught is a ‘performance’ by the teacher for her/his class. It has been put to us that performing at a consistently high level day in day out is a more consistently stressful task than that of many other professions.
1.40 The first conclusion to draw from this discussion is that when teachers undertake work because they believe it benefits pupils, and they have ownership of it, they are likely to value it; but that when these conditions are not met they tend to resent it. This implies that in reviewing workload issues the nature of the work, including teacher ownership of it and perceived value attached to, it is as important as the amount of it.
1.41 A second conclusion relates to the role of school leadership and management. Given that, allowing for subject and teaching age differences, the teachers we spoke to had been through broadly the same series of reforms and changes, it is interesting that these different attitudes were encountered. We believe that, amongst other variables, the way in which school leadership has helped take staff through change, makes a major difference to the way that teachers are able to manage change. We will return to this in the following sections.
Conclusion
1.42 Teachers and headteachers work intensively during the school term, both in terms of hours – which are longer on average than other managers and professionals - and in terms of the “performance” that teaching requires them to give. Over the course of a year the working hours are closer to the average, as a result of the holiday pattern, although even on this annual basis, the hours worked by headteachers in particular remain above the average.
1.43 We should be
mindful of the government’s work-life balance policies and the desire to strike
a better balance for the workforce more generally. Against this background, there may be a case for looking at the
work-life balance of teachers and headteachers, given the intensity of their
working weeks and the pattern of the academic year. We should be mindful that the managers and
professionals that teachers are being compared with are themselves working
longer hours than other European workers, and that in the context of the
government’s work-life balance policies there is a desire to strike a better
balance for the UK workforce more generally.
Therefore our finding that teachers are working at or above average
levels for all managers and professionals implies there is a case for improving
the work-life balance of teachers and headteachers where possible. There is also a case to examine the
intensity of teacher and headteacher work during school terms, and whether a
more even distribution across the year is desirable. In addition, the attitudes of different teachers to
the level of work indicates that an equal focus should be on improving ownership of and sense of
value of the work carried out, and the support available from headteachers and
other staff and resources in schools.
1.44 In the next section we will discuss how hours worked can be used to maximum effect in terms of the impact on pupil outcomes and the value and quality of work for heads and teachers, and whether within this there is scope for any overall improvement in work-life balance.