The Evaluation of the
Transforming the
School Workforce Pathfinder
Project
Professor Hywel Thomas, Dr Graham Butt, Antony Fielding,
Julie Foster, Dr Helen Gunter, Ann Lance, Dr Rachel Pilkington,
Liz Potts, Dr Steve Powers, Dr Steve Rayner,
Dr Desmond Rutherford, Dr Ian Selwood, Chris Szwed
School of Education, University of Birmingham
Research Report
No 541
The Evaluation of the Transforming the
School Workforce Pathfinder Project
Professor Hywel Thomas, Dr Graham Butt, Antony Fielding,
Julie Foster, Dr Helen Gunter, Ann Lance, Dr Rachel Pilkington,
Liz Potts, Dr Steve Powers, Dr Steve Rayner,
Dr Desmond Rutherford, Dr Ian Selwood, Chris Szwed
School of Education, University of Birmingham
The views expressed in this report are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Skills.
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2004. Published with the permission of DfES on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to The Crown Copyright Unit, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ.
CONTENTS
Page
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
1. Context and Design 1
PART TWO: TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS
2. Teachers and Workload 7 3. Schools and Workload 28
PART THREE: PATHFINDER CASE STUDIES
4. Beacon School: distributed leadership 43 5. Lakeside School: using support 49 6. Meadow School: re-modelling learning 54 7. Park Vale School: re-modelling learning 60 8. Small Schools: workforce modernisation and ICT 67 9. Summarising the case studies 74
PART FOUR: CONCLUSION
10. Standards and Cost-Effectiveness 77 11. Summary and conclusion 84
References 87
Annex 1 89
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
In Spring 2002, the DfES launched an initiative called the ‘Transforming School Workforce Pathfinder Project’ (TSW Project). It was a pilot project in 32 schools with a further nine comparator schools. The Project aimed first, to secure significant reductions in the current weekly hours worked by teachers; and second, increase the proportion of teachers’ working week spent teaching or on tasks directly related to teaching. These aims were to be secured by supporting change in schools and providing resources to initiate new working practices:
providing schools with consultancy support (school workforce advisers);
training head teachers in change management; allocating funds for employing additional support staff;
providing Information and Communications Technology (ICT) hardware and software; funding the bursarial training of school managers; and
providing schools with capital build resources.
The Project in the 32 pilot schools and the training in change management was overseen by a team from the London Leadership Centre led by Dame Pat Collarbone. A team of 12 at the School of Education, University of Birmingham, under the leadership of Professor Hywel Thomas, was contracted to evaluate these interventions.
Key Findings
Overall, the Project made an impact in reducing the working hours of teachers, led to change in role boundaries between teachers and other members of the school workforce and made support staff more prominent and effective in schools. Additional ICT resources were beneficial but levels of training and support appear not to have been sufficiently matched with these resources. A concern was the sustainability of several initiatives that were supported by additional funding.
Teachers and workload
Classroom teachers across all types of schools reported a reduction in hours worked, ranging from 3.7 hours per week in the primary schools, 3.5 hours in the special schools and 1.2 hours in the secondary schools.
There was evidence of reduction in time devoted to tasks that could be done by others. There was no systematic relationship between job satisfaction and hours worked.
Access to ICT equipment improved and, while there was no consistent relationship with increased access and total hours worked by teachers, there was a positive relationship between greater access at home and the use of ICT in ‘working directly with pupils’ and in ‘other pupil contact’.
Schools and workload
There was great diversity between schools in the change in reported working hours.
Special schools and primary schools showed a systematic relationship between a decline in hours and positive views among teachers on the quality of leadership, decision-making and change management in their schools.
Across all the schools there was a consistent relationship between good quality ICT training and support and reduction in hours.
Perspectives from the case studies
There were many examples of ‘re-modelling’ and ‘modernisation’ evident in the case study schools. These included:
re-modelling staff roles and responsibilities; staff reviewing their work and workload; re-structuring the school day and week;
using ICT to support learning, such as the use of electronic whiteboards; and
the process of change, which was itself seen as a valuable outcome, creating a mood
shift towards change.
There were concerns about sustainability and whether the additional resources that supported many of the immediate changes would continue and, if not, whether the schools would be able to sustain the changes they had introduced.
Standards and cost-effectiveness
There was no evidence that the Project had a short-term effect on educational standards but there was confidence among some teachers interviewed that the changes can contribute to raising standards.
There were examples of cost-effective initiatives, although schools found it challenging to provide quantifiable measures of outcomes for some of their initiatives.
Conclusion
The Project appeared to have made an impact in reducing teachers’ working hours between the early summer of 2002 and the same time in 2003. However, the level of impact differed between schools and between types of schools with larger reductions in the special and primary schools compared with secondary schools. There were also other marked differences between the special and primary schools compared with the secondary schools in terms of factors related to reductions in hours, such as experience of working with teaching assistants and perceptions of change management, leadership and decision-making.
The Project also made the role of support staff more prominent and effective in schools. The additional ICT resources were viewed as beneficial, although the scale of impact, so far, was relatively modest and there was a need to ensure that training and support matched the provision of additional material resources.
The case studies illustrated the diversity of initiatives that developed as a result of the Project and ways of developing the ‘modernisation’ initiative. However, there was also a concern about the future, most notably on the sustainability of the changes that have been introduced, in part, through the provision of additional resources. Nonetheless, the evidence in this Report shows that schools were able to take the opportunity offered by the Project and initiate and successfully implement new ways of working together.
iii
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 CONTEXT AND DESIGN
1.1 Background
Concern about workload, job satisfaction, efficiency, recruitment and retention are all key issues affecting the contemporary labour market for teachers. They are longstanding and shared concerns between the DfES, LEAs, employers, professional associations and other stakeholders, all of whom recognise the key role of teachers in raising the quality and
standards of achievement of young people in schools. Their significance for these groups are evidenced by the STRB (2002) report, Special Review of Approaches to Reducing Workload and the DfES’ autumn 2002, publication, Time for Standards. Reforming the School
Workforce, leading to the National Agreement signed by employers and school workforce unions in January, 2003 and the subsequent publication in April, 2003, Time for Standards: Consultation on Implementing the National Agreement.1
One component of the response to these issues is the Transforming the School Workforce Pathfinder Project (TSW Project) where a total of 32 schools, four special schools, 16 primary schools and 12 secondary schools became part of a national project designed to explore different ways of working in schools. A further nine schools were selected as comparator schools with the intention of comparing change in these schools with the 32 Project schools. The TSW Project had two main elements. The first element was the provision to schools of consultancy support, led by the London Leadership Centre, to give advice, guidance, training and support in the management of change in the schools. Schools were encouraged to think radically about the use of human and physical resources. The second element was in the form of resources. This included funds for employing additional support staff and provision of ICT hardware and software to bring all the schools to an agreed standard, notably that all teachers had a laptop computer. Access to training programmes for selected groups of staff, particularly teaching assistants and those fulfilling a bursar-type role, were also made
available and some schools secured funds for capital projects.
These elements were intended to contribute to changes in the pattern of work of those employed in schools. Ideally, it should contribute to enriching the work of all and add to job satisfaction and commitment but, for teachers in particular, the Project had the aim of securing significant reductions in weekly hours worked and increasing the proportion of teachers’ working week spent teaching or on tasks directly related to teaching.
In relation to the TSW Project and these elements, the evaluation team from the School of Education, University of Birmingham, had a dual role. One role is embodied in this Report – and earlier interim and supplementary reports – of providing an assessment of the
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this Project. A second role has been to provide information to the change management consultants and each school, whilst ensuring that the relationship maintains a distance appropriate to ensure an independent assessment of the Pathfinder Project. The first major function was to undertake an initial survey of school workforce activity and attitudes and prepare a set of 32 individual school reports so that each school received a document showing the response of its own staff to the survey compared with the aggregate profile of the other schools from the sector that were members of the TSW Project. For example, each special school received a document showing its individual response compared with the overall profile for the four special schools in the TSW Project. Each report was confidential to the school and intended to assist each school prepare an action plan by the end of June 2002, in which initial proposals for change from September 2002 were outlined. The work undertaken and the preparation of various reports has been guided by the two main elements of the TSW Project and issues identified by earlier studies, reports and commentaries.
1 Annex 1 sets out 25 tasks ‘that teachers should not routinely do’ as reflected in the National Agreement. The Table also includes the schedule of items about teachers’ work that are used by the Office of Manpower Economics in their bi-annual surveys as well as the items used in the surveys undertaken as part of this evaluation.
1.2 Literature
National and international work has shown evidence of overload on teachers in terms of volume of work and the nature of this work and, arising from this, the need to find ways to enable them to focus on their core purposes. The UK is also entering a period when the age profile of the teaching profession means the retirement of a large cadre of teachers over the next decade. It will make the recruitment of sufficient numbers of teachers a major challenge for schools. The development of ICT also has implications for schools both inside and outside the classroom and will have consequence for the work of teachers and others that need examination. These three sets of factors combine to make it timely to review the working patterns of teachers and the boundaries of their work with other members of the school workforce.
A recurring dilemma for teachers is defining the boundary of their work and managing this boundary in ways that enable them to focus on their core purposes (Cockburn, 1994; Earley and Fletcher-Campbell, 1989; Hargreaves, 1994). The load on teachers has been highlighted by recent studies, including work for the DfES by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC, 2001) and by the Office of Manpower Economics (OME) for the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB, 2000). The PwC Report concluded that:
Teachers and headteachers work more intensive weeks than other comparable managers and professionals. On an annual comparison, teachers work at similar levels to other managers and professionals….Headteachers’ own workloads are higher than average – by some 300-400 hours a year (pp. 1-2).
In addition to the amount of work and its intensity, the same report recognised concerns related to the pace and manner of change, a perception of an inadequate level of professional trust, a view that headteachers do not recognise the need to help in managing the workload of their staff, rising expectations about what schools can achieve and a lack of ownership of many current initiatives. In the context of this analysis, the report made a number of
recommendations, including re-designing aspects of school work, changing the distribution of who does what among categories of staff, greater use of ICT and the use of external advice to support change (PwC, 2001: 3). These recommendations added to the growing emphasis on seeking ways by which teachers could focus upon their core role. In 1998, for example, the DfES produced a list of 25 items that classroom teachers should not routinely do, a list subsequently ratified by the STRB (DfES, 1998).
The challenge of bringing about these changes should not be underestimated, particularly since established working practices are a complex mixture of a ‘dilemma of consciousness’ based on personal teacher obligation combined with organisational responsibilities and requirements (Campbell and St J. Neill, 1997:104). This is not to say that change cannot be secured. Work commissioned by the DFE a decade ago showed 25 case study schools using ‘associate staff’ in innovative ways, making use of the then recently introduced flexibility of local management of schools (Mortimore, Mortimore with Thomas, 1994). A study of good practice in resource management, commissioned by the DFE in 1993, further evidenced the ability of some schools to use their local responsibility for resources to good effect (Thomas and Martin, 1996). Yet, these ‘pathfinders’ did not lead to the extensive and radical changes in the work of teachers that may have been anticipated. Moreover, although major studies of the early years of local management of schools showed changes in patterns of resource use, they failed to show ‘any substantial impact on educational standards’ (HMI, 1992:11; Levacic, 1995 and Bullock and Thomas, 1997). Of course, there is a need to recognise that the changing demands on schools over the last decade may well have led to a re-casting of the work of teachers and others. In other words, without site based management, the patterns of work reported by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2001) may otherwise have shown teachers undertaking even more work that was not directly related to teaching than is currently the case. Whether or not this is the case, there is little doubt that securing significant change in working practices is a challenging task and, for this reason, the TSW Pathfinder Project has included School Workforce Advisers as a source of external advice and support for managing change.
v
Such support is also appropriate for developing the use of ICT in schools. Since the publication of the Stevenson Report (1997), there have been several government initiatives designed to encourage the widespread use of ICT in schools. Schools are being supported to become equipped with modern ICT facilities and for teaching staff to become confident and competent in using ICT within the curriculum (Ofsted, 2002). There is already some evidence of the beneficial impact of ICT on pupil achievement. A preliminary report on the impact of ICT in secondary schools suggested that the more widely a school uses ICT across the subject curriculum, the better its GCSE results (Becta, 2001). More recently, however, emergent findings of the IMPACT2 project suggest that, while there is a positive relationship between ICT use and educational achievement, the relationship is complex (DfES, 2001). Thus, it is not simply the amount of ICT use in a subject that is important but how it is used (Harrison et al., 2002). These issues were pertinent for the pilot schools in the Project as some invested in ICT, such as electronic whiteboards, for direct use in teaching and learning. More significant for this Project may be the use of ICT in supporting management and administration, an area where both the DfEE (1997) and the TTA (1998) have identified the uses and benefits of using ICT for administration and management. Yet, evidence of optimal use is doubtful and the potential of the Project in exploring this issue is significant. The School Workforce Advisers and the opportunities for headteachers to share ideas may be important here, not least as studies show the importance of schools networking locally, nationally and internationally, if they are to regenerate and sustain developments within diverse communities (Fullan, 2001; Kickert et al., 1997).
It is against this background and context that this study evaluates the elements of the
Transforming School Workforce Pathfinder Project and the extent to which the Project’s aims have been achieved. The approach was underpinned by a methodological framework that guided the work undertaken.
1.3 The framework for the evaluation
The evaluation of the TSW Pathfinder Project is based upon a single framework within which the different components of the Project have been incorporated. It is an overarching
framework representing the range of categories that have to be taken into account in a school and, therefore, whilst it guides the work undertaken, it includes a number of elements that are not included in this study. It is represented by Figure 1: Linking resources to learning.
The Figure gives primacy to the standard and quality of learning and how they are dependent upon the curriculum, pastoral care, continuity and assessment. The nature and quality of these factors is, of course, dependent upon the other components of Figure 1, the means by which ideas become realities, and the immediate focus of this Project is on change to these components.
Teachers and associate staff are the principal budgetary resource in schools whose number, quality and commitment are central to achievement in any school. A major focus of the Project is to reduce the pressures on teachers and shift certain tasks to members of the support staff. One aspect of this Report will be to review changes in the distribution of work over the duration of the Project. Administrative systems are also critical, for example in maintaining pupil records and enabling teachers to learn about the progress pupils have made in earlier years; the evaluation will seek to identify developments here. The physical resources used by a school includes learning resources and the premises it occupies and all draw upon external support in a variety of forms, such as the support provided by the external consultants. The contribution of teachers and associate staff also has a non-financial
dimension: the goodwill they bring to their work will differ from one school to another and have an effect on what a school can hope to achieve. The perceptions of the school workforce about their own school and their place in it can be expected to influence their response to the proposed changes and will be monitored during the evaluation.
The standard and quality of learning Curriculum and pedagogy. Quality and continuity of learning. Pastoral care and
mentoring The nature and effectiveness of assessment Leadership,
Leadership,
management management
and planning and planning Teachers and associate staff Administrative support systems Physical resources:
premises and learning materials
External relations and support
Financial and non-financial resources
Figure 1: Linking resources to learning
Leadership, managementand planning are shown on the left and right side of Figure 1. These are the means by which the link is made between resources and learning. Its location in the Figure is intended to emphasise its distinctive place in schools. It is through leadership that schools define their aims and purposes and decide how they are to be achieved. Given the importance of organisational change embodied in the Project, this will be an important area for enquiry.
For this evaluation, the selection from the framework is determined by the essence of the TSW Pathfinder Project and this is embodied in two words: resources and change. First, the Project provides schools with a variety of additional resources. Second, and more crucially, by working with a school’s leadership capacities, it is intended to alter the way existing resources are used, changing the amount and deployment of teacher time and enabling teachers to focus more directly on learning and teaching. Viewed in this way, there are four critical tests of the Project’s success.
Above all others, the most important test was whether the hours of teachers fell during the year. In the context of its aims, evidence of a fall in hours or the expectation that changes will lead to a fall in hours must be a defining aspect of the Project. Linked to this are questions about the distribution of teacher time to different activities and whether this altered. The second test examined change in the school’s leadership, management and planning capacities. The presumption of the Project was that changing working practices in schools required appropriate skills and capacities in change management by school leaders and, moreover, that these capacities needed to be developed and supported by external consultants. Change in school organisation and whether and how this was related to changes in hours was, therefore, examined. In effect, the relationship between change in hours in schools and the nature and change of school leadership was tested.
vii
The third test referred to educational standards. Whilst the principal goals of the Project were to reduce the hours worked by teachers and to alter the distribution of work within the school workforce, these needed to be achieved without compromising the overriding national goal of improving the educational standards achieved by pupils and students, as measured by examination and test scores. The Project team approached this issue recognising that the timescale is such that improvements in educational standards as a result of new ways of working were unlikely. Moreover, a properly designed examination of the relationship between these resource changes and educational achievements would require a longitudinal and pupil-based methodology that was not part of this evaluation. The focus, therefore, was a limited comparison of two groups of pupils and students who took examinations and Key Stage tests in 2002 and 2003, complemented by observational comments from teachers about the impact of the TSW Project on the quality of teaching and learning.
The final test was whether the Project generated initiatives that represented value for money. In that context, some of the schools provided good quality data that showed how different deployment of members of the school workforce contributed to more cost-effective deployment of staff time without loss of quality.
1.4 Method
The data in this Report are based upon information collected from the 32 pilot schools with some data on hours worked by teachers at nine ‘comparator’ schools.
All teachers and support staff working in the 32 pilot schools and nine ‘comparator’ schools were asked to complete a substantial questionnaire on two occasions. For the 32 pilot schools, the first was at the beginning of the summer term, 2002 and the second at the beginning of the summer term, 2003. In both years, visits to the ‘comparator’ schools were later than to the Project schools. The data from the 2002 survey were provided in earlier reports and are not repeated here. In this Report, the emphasis has been on showing the responses to the 2003 survey and, where possible, comparing these with the 2002 data so that changes in the course of the year are shown. In 2003, a total of 2077 questionnaires were distributed to the pilot schools and 1578 were completed, a response rate of 76 per cent. In the special schools, 173 were completed from a total of 202, a response rate of 86 per cent. In the primary schools, 440 were completed from 498 distributed, a response rate of 88 per cent. In the secondary schools, 969 were completed from a total of 1377, a response rate of 70 per cent. When data from 2002 are compared with 2003, only data on individuals who reported at both points are shown. As a result of staff changes and turnover, this means that the number for whom there are data at both points are lower than the total number of responses in each of 2002 and 2003. The questionnaire data are in two forms. There are large amounts of quantitative data but there are also qualitative data from open questions in the 2003 questionnaire. The use of these has been selective with inclusion related to their relevance to the four critical tests.
When the 32 schools were visited, interviews were undertaken with a range of staff and their outcomes are included. There were a total of 359 interviews, 40 in the special schools, 122 in the primary schools and 197 in the secondary schools. In all these schools, the departure of staff was monitored and information from 126 exit questionnaires are included in the Report. In a further set of schools, additional visits were made and the interviews and meetings in these schools provide a group of case studies. In addition to interviews with 56 teachers, support staff and governors, there were focus group meetings with students. All these data are drawn upon in the conclusion.
1.5 The structure of the report
The structure of the Report reflects the main goals of the Project and does so in a way that seeks a distinction between the responses of individual teachers from the overall response of the schools in which they work. Part One contains Chapter 1 in which the context of the study and its design are set out together with an outline of the structure of this Report.
Part Two has two Chapters. In Chapter 2, patterns of change among teachers are examined with particular reference to their behaviour, knowledge and attitudes. In Chapter 3, the emphasis is on the impact of organisational factors on the behaviour of teachers in particular
schools. Here the level of analysis is the school and whether there are school level attributes affecting the hours worked by teachers.
Part Three of the Report – Chapters 4 to 9 - draws on the more qualitative component of the study with five chapters of case studies. Four of these are about the experience of individual schools while one examines the experience of a set of small schools that shared their experiences as a consortium. These chapters provide a more qualitative and individual case study perspective on the experience of the schools during the first year of the TSW Project.
Part Four contains two chapters. In Chapter 10, data on educational standards and cost- effectiveness are reported. It draws upon evidence provided from the surveys, case studies and data collected on budgets and educational attainment. It has already been noted that the data on educational standards are limited. They are not pupil-level data that would enable an appropriate analysis of change; they are the aggregate measures of outcomes for Key Stage tests and GCSEs in 2002 and 2003. Their purpose would be to act as no more than a signal for possible other work on the relationship between the changes sought by the Project and their consequence for educational attainment. The Chapter also includes examples of initiatives in the 32 schools where their cost has been identified and related to their effect. They provide indicators of ways the experience of the 32 schools can be applied elsewhere. The concluding Chapter 11 draws together the data from all components of the study, relating these to the core themes of resources and change and assessing them in relation to the critical tests of hours, organisational change, educational standards and cost-effectiveness.
ix
PART TWO: TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS
2 TEACHERS AND WORKLOAD
This Chapter begins by examining the data collected on teacher hours and how these changed between the two main survey points of early summer, 2002 and early summer, 2003. These data are reported in a way that distinguishes groups of teachers and whether they are based in special, primary or secondary schools. Data are also included on the responses of teachers to sets of statements on job satisfaction and quality of life, as improvements in these areas were important aspects of the overall aims of the Project. The movement of staff are also examined. At the end of each term, a survey was undertaken of members of the workforce who left the schools and the outcomes of that survey are
reported. Finally, as part of seeking to understand the reasons for changes in hours, the relationship between reported hours and the views and experiences of teachers are
examined. These include analysis of key changes, notably whether teachers’ experience of clerical work and access to ICT has changed and how these are related to hours worked.
2.1 Reported weekly and holiday hours
In Table 2.1, the reported hours of work are shown for all teachers who responded to the survey. These data arise from replies to the question: ‘Thinking of the second half of the spring term, how many hours per week do you normally work (include all work related activity in school and elsewhere)? Responses were to a range of options (e.g. 31-40 hours; 41-50 hours, etc.) and the mid-point has been assumed as the basis for the final calculation. Table 2.1: Reported weekly hours by teachers
Occupation N 2002 Mean hrs 2002 N 2003 Mean hrs 2003 N 2002 & 2003 Change in hrs. Primary Headteachers 13 57.2 11 55.1 10 -4.3 Deputy heads (1) 19 56.4 15 50.8 13 -7.2 Class teachers (2) 136 52.7 133 50.1 124 -3.7 Secondary Headteachers 12 58.4 10 56.8 7 -3.1 Deputy heads (1) 54 55.4 56 53.4 49 -1.8 Heads of Faculty (3) 92 52.1 80 50.5 61 -.01 Class teachers (4) 477 49.9 421 49.1 311 -1.2 Special Class teachers (2) 53 52.8 49 49.0 47 -3.5 Notes:
(1) All leadership group except headteacher (deputy, assistant head, leadership group) (2) All other teachers, excluding trainees
(3) Management points, recruitment and retention points, advanced skills teachers (4) NQTs, main scale, upper scale
The Table shows three sets of data about reported hours worked. The first two columns show the number of headteachers, deputies and classroom teachers who responded to this question in the 2002 survey and the average number of hours they reported as normally working. For example, classroom teachers in primary schools reported working an average of 52.7 hours each term time week. The next two columns report the comparable figures for 2003. Thus, 133 primary classroom teachers responded and reported working an average of 50.1 hours each term time week. The last two columns are based on replies from those who responded in both years. In the case of primary school classroom teachers, therefore, there were 124 who replied in both years and their responses show an average fall of 4.1 hours in their reported hours of work. Indeed, the data in these last two columns report a fall in reported hours across all categories with the exception of Heads of Faculty in secondary schools who reported a small increase of 0.3 hours.
In relation to the overall objectives of the Project, these are very positive outcomes, all the more in that the change was apparent in all groups except for Faculty Heads in secondary schools. However, data from the secondary schools in the ‘comparator’ set also show this change. In the ‘comparator’ secondary schools, data from 72 class teachers who completed this question in 2002 and 2003 show a reduction of 1.9 hours worked each week, as against a reduction of 1.3 hours for the same group in the Project schools. How are we to interpret these data? First, we need to be cautious about the nature of the ‘comparator’ schools. These were not selected randomly to be a control group but had expressed an interest in being part of the Project. It may be, therefore, that they were particularly interested in the purposes of the Project and already alert to the issue of workload. Second, data from the ‘comparator’ schools were collected later in the summer term than in the Project schools. As the question on which these data were based asked teachers to think of the second half of the spring term, the longer time interval may make recall difficult. Three other factors may also be significant. One is that the intervention with the questionnaire made the issue more prominent for these teachers who became more critical and questioning of hours worked and, second, this may have been re-enforced by the greater profile given to the issue by the ‘National Agreement’ in January, 2003. Finally, it is important to recognise that there is a range of error in any survey and, on the same issue, the larger the survey the smaller the degree of uncertainty about the results. As the main data set contains information from 311 secondary school teachers and the ‘comparator’ set data from 72 teachers, the range of error will be greater in the ‘comparator’ schools.
Notwithstanding these qualifying comments, the reported fall in hours should not be set aside. The change in hours appear to be related, in its broadest sense, to the Project and it is
important to note that the change in hours in the Project schools was not only reflected in the response to this question but in others that related to work in the evening and weekends as well as outside term time. Table 2.2 shows the reported change on work outside term time. Table 2.2: Reported work by teachers outside term time
Occupation N 2002 Mean days 2002 N 2003 Mean days 2003 N 2002 & 2003 Change in days Primary Headteachers 14 20 11 19 10 -1.2 Deputy heads (1) 19 20 15 16 13 -5.7 Class teachers (2) 167 17 149 16 124 -2.5 Secondary Headteachers 11 25 9 26 6 -2.6 Deputy heads (1) 54 21 57 18 50 -1.7 Heads of Faculty (3) 92 18 84 19 61 -0.6 Class teachers (4) 530 16 452 16 311 -1.4 Special Class teachers (2) 63 20 50 17 43 -5.5 When the data for 2002 with 2003 were compared, six of the eight groups showed no change or a slight decline while secondary headteachers and heads of faculty showed a small increase. For example, the 11 secondary school headteachers who replied in 2002 reported 25 days of work outside term time and the nine replying in 2003 reported 26 days. However, when the data for those who reported in both years were compared, there was a fall in working time reported for each category, ranging from an average of 5.7 days for primary school deputy heads to 0.6 of a day for heads of faculty in secondary schools. Of these two ways of reviewing the data, the second method is the more reliable because the change data are based only on replies from the same people – like is being compared with like. By comparison, the 2002 data includes returns from some staff who made no return in 2003 and the 2003 returns includes responses from those who made no return in 2002. The
differences between these groups may have arisen because of staff turnover or staff absence on the day of the survey. In any event, the like-for-like comparison is the more reliable and, on the basis of these returns, provide grounds for encouragement that the Project had an impact on teachers’ work.
2.2 Evening and weekend work
Teachers were asked ‘to indicate the time you normally work during the school week’ against three categories – evening, Saturday and Sunday – with options ranging from zero to more than three hours. Their replies for 2003 are shown in Table 4.3 together with the mean working hours for 2002 and 2003. For those who replied in both years, the change in working hours are reported.
Table 2.3: Evening and weekend work (response shown as a percentage)
Time in Hours N 2003 No Resp. 0 <1 1 2 3 >3 2002 mean 2003 mean 02-03 change Eve 70 7 1 11 34 29 10 7 1.9 1.7 -0.34 Sat 70 44 23 6 6 10 4 7 1.2 1.3 -0.27 Special Schools Sun 70 20 6 6 17 21 13 17 2.5 2.1 -0.67 Eve 184 2 2 14 28 39 10 6 1.8 1.7 -0.22 Sat 184 24 38 8 11 10 5 5 1.2 0.9 -0.33 Primary Schools Sun 184 6 11 7 14 26 15 22 2.4 2.1 -0.41 Eve 641 3 2 8 25 41 11 10 2.0 1.9 -0.12 Sat 641 19 35 6 10 14 7 8 1.3 1.2 -0.11 Secondary Schools Sun 641 6 10 6 11 22 18 25 2.4 2.3 -0.23 Patterns of work during the week and weekend show 95 per cent of teachers doing some work at these times. The pattern of work was similar across all types of school. The mean for a ‘typical’ evening in 2003 was 1.7 hours in special and primary schools and 1.9 hours in secondary schools. These must to be aggregated to obtain a total for the week and such an aggregation would depend on how many weekday evenings teachers work. For example, if teachers normally worked on four evenings, excluding weekends, these data indicate 6.8 hours of work in special and primary schools and 7.6 hours in secondary schools. In terms of change from 2002, the evidence points to a small decline in each sector with the total for all weekdays again depending on the number of evenings worked. Thus, if work occurs on four weekday evenings, the reduction amounts to about 80 minutes in special schools, 53 minutes in primary schools and 29 minutes in secondary schools.
With respect to Saturday, the mean hours in 2003 was 1.3 (special), 0.9 (primary) and 1.2 (secondary); and for Sunday, the mean was 2.1 (special), 2.1 (primary) and 2.3 (secondary). In terms of change between 2002 and 2003, there was a modest fall in hours across all school types ranging from 0.11 per cent (less than seven minutes) to 0.67 per cent (about 40 minutes).
2.4 The nature of teachers’ work
In both surveys, teachers were asked to respond to a set of detailed questions about the distribution of their time to different activities.2 This Report cites the outcomes for the survey undertaken in 2003.
2 Annex 1 provides further information on these activities. In devising the questions for the questionnaire survey, comparability was sought with those used by the OME in their bi-annual diary survey.
xiii
Special Schools 44% 10% 15% 12% 6% 13% TeachingOther Pupil contact Supporting
School/Staff management General Administration Other Duties
In the pilot special schools in 2003, teachers reported that they spent 44 per cent of their time teaching and a further ten per cent in other forms of pupil contact, including registration, supervision, pastoral work and out-of-hours clubs. About 15 per cent of their time was committed to supporting learning, activities that include planning and preparing lessons, tests and assessments, marking class work, homework, exams and tests, keeping records of pupil performance and preparing pupils’ work for display. Twelve per cent of time was spent on school and staff management and six per cent on general administration, including organising resources and different forms of clerical work. Less frequent ‘other activities’, such as staff training, writing term reports, liaison with governors and parents added up to a further 13 per cent of time. In assessing change between 2002 and 2003 in the distribution of time to different activities, data were provided by 41 full time teachers who replied in both years and, with respect to time spent on the items in the ‘teaching’ category, there was a negligible decline of 0.7 per cent.
Whilst this global perspective showed little change, further analysis of some items was more illuminating. Underlying each of these six main categories were 85 sub-items and, of these, eight were selected for further analysis because they could clearly be done by members of the school workforce who were not teachers. These were: (1) preparing pupil work for display; (2) mounting pupil work for display; (3) clerical work – photocopying; (4) clerical work – filing; (5) clerical work – database entry; (6) clerical work – routine form filling; (7) collecting money from children – school trips; and (8) collecting money from children – clubs. If schools had reviewed the type of work that teachers were doing that could – even should - be done by others, these six items might be expected to show change. In interpreting these data,
however, it is necessary to recognise that estimates of time to different activities are often over-estimated so that, for example, the total time estimated for the 85 items were greater than the answer given to the question ‘how many hours per week do you normally work’. For that reason it was more appropriate to monitor the direction of change among those teachers who replied to these questions in both years.
When these eight items were examined in the special schools, the most notable finding was that for all except one of the items, teachers reported a fall in time spent on all but one of these activities. The first two of these items – preparing and mounting pupil work for display – showed a total fall of about 40 minutes per week among the 33 teachers reporting in both years. The remaining six items were clerical functions and these showed a total fall 45 minutes among the 25 teachers reporting in both years; the one item showing a rise was an increase of only one minute. It is important to be cautious in using these numbers. Estimates of time devoted to specific tasks are just that – estimates – and subject to error. However, the direction of change is illuminating. On average, those teachers reporting on the distribution of their time in 2003 compared with 2002 showed a marked decline in hours spent on tasks that can clearly be done by other members of the school workforce.
Primary Schools 42% 11% 20% 9% 6% 12% Teaching
Other Pupil contact Supporting
School/Staff management General Administration Other Duties
In the pilot primary schools in the Project, teachers reported in the 2003 survey that they spent 42 per cent of their time teaching. Eleven per cent of their time was reported as being committed to other pupil contact and 20 per cent to supporting learning. School and staff management absorbed about nine per cent of their time, six per cent on general
administration and 12 per cent on other less frequent activities. When the results of the 106 teachers who provided data in 2002 and 2003 were compared, there was a small increase of three per cent in the time allocated to the ‘teaching’ category.
Analysis of changes between 2002 and 2003 to the eight items of activity that could clearly be done by non-teaching members of the school workforce showed a fall in time devoted to these tasks. For the two items on preparing and mounting pupils’ work for display, the mean fall in time reported by 83 teachers was 52 minutes per week and, for the 81 teachers reporting on the six ‘clerical’ items, a fall of 58 minutes was reported. Whist over-reliance on the actual numbers would be unwise, the direction of change for all these items, except for a negligible increase for one, indicated a trend that was clearly positive in the way teachers were re-thinking the distribution of their time.
Secondary Schools 44% 11% 20% 6% 6% 13% Teaching
Other Pupil contact Supporting
School/Staff management General Administration Other Duties
xv
Secondary school teachers in the pilot schools reported that in 2003, 44 per cent of their time was committed to teaching and 11 per cent to other forms of pupil contact. Supporting learning, activities such as planning and preparing lessons, tests and assessments, marking class work, homework, exams and tests, keeping records of pupil performance absorbed 20 per cent of their time with six per cent committed to school and staff management and six per cent to general administration. About 13 per cent of the time of class teachers was spent on less frequent ‘other activities’. In reviewing the responses from those who replied in 2002 and 2003, there was almost no change. For the 282 teachers who provided data in both years, there was a negligible increase of 0.2 per cent in time allocated to the ‘teaching’ category. When changes to the eight ‘non-teaching’ tasks were examined, the profile among secondary school teachers was markedly different from their special and primary school counterparts. Their response to the two items on pupil display showed a fall of only three minutes by the 206 teachers who replied in both years. For the other six ‘clerical’ items, the 177 teachers who responded to these in both years reported a decline of 22 minutes, 15 of these on the item ‘clerical work – photocopying’, and an overall fall that was lower than in the special and primary schools.
Reviewing the data across the three sectors, the biggest difference was on the time devoted by teachers to preparing pupil displays. On this task, teachers in special and primary schools reported a large fall in time while secondary school teachers reported no change. The effect of this was to make the 2003 returns more comparable across all three sectors. Thus, in 2003, the 390 secondary school teachers reported spending 66 minutes per week on pupil display compared with 72 minutes in primary schools and 64 minutes in special schools. Whilst these estimates must not be interpreted too literally, the overall profile of no change in secondary schools and marked change in the special and primary schools suggests that these were items available for ‘quick wins’ in the use of time in those schools with teachers transferring functions to support staff.
With respect to the ‘clerical items’, while secondary school teachers reported a decline of 22 minutes, this was lower than the decline of 58 minutes among primary school teachers and 45 minutes in the special schools. Moreover, comparisons of the responses by all teachers in 2003 showed these items as taking more time among secondary school teachers with the biggest difference in two items: ‘clerical work – database entry’ and ‘clerical work – routine form filling’. On these items alone, secondary school teachers reported spending 66 minutes per week compared with 33 minutes by teachers in special and primary schools. While these data must not be interpreted too literally, they do point to activities in secondary schools that might more appropriately be done by members of the clerical staff.
Taken as a whole, therefore, a review of the eight items that could be transferred to non-teaching members of the school workforce, suggest two initial conclusions. First, it would seem that there were some ‘quick wins’ that were implemented in special and primary schools with respect to pupil display and where the fall in time between 2002 and 2003 may have contributed to the larger fall in total hours in those schools. Second, there would seem to be some evidence that there was routine activity related to database work and form filling in all schools - but particularly in secondary schools - that could be transferred to non-teacher members of the school workforce. This conclusion was re-enforced when teachers’ personal observations on their workload were examined.
2.5 Teachers’ views on workload
The second questionnaire survey was conducted in the early summer term, 2003,
complemented by interviews with a range of staff. The survey and the interviews gave staff opportunities to comment on workload and these are reported in this section. A total of 1,578 questionnaires were returned and 359 interviews undertaken.
2.5.1 Teachers’ views on their own workload
The first question asked in each interview during the 2003 visits was: ‘What for you are the main issues in relation to your role and your workload since the introduction of the Pathfinder Project?’
In the 40 interviews with teachers in the special schools, six teachers said that their
workload had been reduced during the last year while five teachers said that their workload had increased. This appears to contrast with the overall profile from the survey which shows an overall reduction of about four hours in the length of the working week of class teachers in the special schools. There are a number of factors that may explain this difference. First, a decline in the average profile can still mean that the hours of some teachers increased. Second, it may be that those interviewed were more involved in managing change and this meant an increase in hours for them. Third, the difference may be a result of sampling, as 11 were selected for interview whilst 47 gave data where we could compare replies in both years. Fourth, it may be that reflections during an interview differ from an assessment made when responding to a survey. This is more likely where the interviews involved a perception of change over the year while the data from the questionnaires were from two sampling points.
Three of the teachers interviewed reported that ICT had helped to reduce their
workload, enabling them either to undertake tasks more efficiently or allowing them to pass tasks to others. Two teachers said that it had increased their workload, as they became more familiar with applications or were developing new materials.
Twelve of those interviewed said that a benefit of the Project was an increase in
planning time and six mentioned the benefits arising from the appointment of additional staff, such as teaching assistants and administrative staff.
In the 122interviews with teachers in the primary schools, ten said that their workload
had been reduced during the last year compared with 21 who said that their workload had increased and 13 who said that there was little or no change. There is a contrast here with the 124 teachers for whom we have data on time in both years. The questionnaire data points to a reduction of about four hours in the length of the working week.
Thirteen teachers interviewed said that ICT had helped to reduce their workload, of
which seven cited laptops as the reason for this.
Twelve teachers reported that a benefit of the Project was an increase in planning
time while eleven said that a benefit of the Project was the role of teaching assistants and eight mentioned the appointment of additional staff, of whom five cited the appointment of a resources manager.
In the 197 interviews with teachers in the secondary schools, 18 said that their
workload had been reduced in the last year while 22 said that their workload had increased and a further 20 said that there was little or no change to their workload. This compares with the data from the questionnaire survey where information from 311 teachers from both years points to a small reduction of just over an hour in working time.
A substantial number - 42 of the teachers interviewed - said that ICT had made a
positive impact on their work and 18 that Teaching Assistants had had a positive impact on their work. Examples included assistance in personal organisation, preparation and planning. ICT had also helped improve the quality of work, in appearance and content and in providing electronic access to school databases. Some commented that electronic whiteboards had ‘revolutionised’ their approach to teaching.
2.5.2 Teachers’ views on workload in general
At the end of the questionnaire, teachers were asked to give their views on the causes of excessive workload. The views given during the 2003 survey are summarised below.
From the perspective of the 66 teachers in special schools who provided written comments, a range of factors were cited as the main causes of excessive workload:
Forty cited bureaucracy and paper work (marking, monitoring, record keeping,
planning, form filling) with little or no support.
Twenty two identified ‘too manytasks’ not directly related to teaching.
xvii
to produce differentiated learning programmes of work.
Other factors included: nine who mentioned too many meetings; five who said insufficient protected non-contact time; a further five cited unrealistic expectations such as inappropriate targets and tasks that were poorly matched to time allowances for their completion. Three reported inappropriate accountability demands (OfSTED, National Curriculum, performance tables, lesson planning, record-keeping, and marking moderation) and two identified too many government initiatives as the cause. Two hundred and six (206) primary school teachers completed the open questions on the causes of excessive workload and identified several factors as causing this.
Seventy-six cited paperwork and administration as the main cause of workload. Fifty-two teachers commented that planning and differentiation causes excessive
workload.
Thirty-seven identified too many government initiatives and curriculum overload. Twenty-nine identified marking, monitoring and assessment as a problem. Twenty-one said that there is too much record keeping.
Other factors included 15 who thought planning and the preparation of resources is
the main cause of workload problems; 15 stated that there are excessive accountability demands (including Ofsted); 14 cited the lack of non-contact time and that the role is still too demanding with insufficient time to do the job; 12 stated that there was too much managerial activity across school (meetings, review, planning); nine suggested that expectations on teachers are too high; nine mentioned the completion of tasks not directly related to teaching; seven that class size is too big; and six suggested that teachers need to develop time management skills. Other items mentioned by a small number of teachers were: low levels of resource (human and non-human); excessive demands when preparing for a mixed key stage class; insufficient ICT and lack of administrative staff.
Across the 592 secondary school teachers who responded to this question, several issues were identified as causing excessive workload.
Two hundred and nineteen identified bureaucracy and paper work as a principal
cause, including record keeping, planning, and form filling with little or no support.
One hundred and twenty six said school discipline, such as pupil misbehaviour,
attendance, pastoral issues and working with external agencies.
Ninety-eight perceived accountability demands as a major factor, including Ofsted,
National Curriculum, performance tables, report writing, record-keeping, and marking moderation.
Sixty-four said that class sizes are too large.
Fifty-eight cited unrealistic expectations such as inappropriate targets and tasks that
are poorly matched to time allowances for completion.
Forty-three pointed to change initiatives fatigue both government and school
generated.
Thirty-three identified the time involved in ICT take-up and systems conversion from
paper to e-media.
Thirty thought the low numbers of teaching assistants/ support staff/ teachers was a
cause.
Other factors included 20 who mentioned ‘cover’ and non-contact time; 16 identified
inefficient systems of school administration and communication; 11 identified preparation for practical lessons without support staff assistance; ten felt there was the need for more ICT skills; eight believed there were too many or unnecessary meetings; and others mentioned the changing demands of the curriculum, the culture that expects teachers to work out of school hours and that there is too much teaching and pupil contact time.
2.6 Solutions for Excessive Workload
In addition to asking for views on the causes of excessive workload, teachers were also asked to give their views on possible solutions to workload problems and their responses are summarised below.
Among the 66 teachers in special schools who responded, twelve items were mentioned as possible solutions.
Nineteen who responded to the question identified the need to cut paperwork by
streamlining or by focusing on the planning of lessons rather than record keeping.
Eighteen suggested employing additional clerical and administrative staff. Ten identified employing more teachers and/or teaching assistants as a solution. Other suggestions included seven who proposed fewer meetings and more protected
non-contact time (for marking, preparation, administration); six identified a general reduction in the number of non teaching tasks completed by teachers; six proposed a reduction in aspects of monitoring, assessment, recording, reporting and accountability; five mentioned increasing the levels of professionalism with appropriate training and continuing professional development for support staff; five proposed the continuing development of ICT systems, infra-structure and software provision; and five identified better provision and management of resources (human and non-human). A small number also mentioned: better defined job specification/role responsibility across the school work force; fewer or no new initiatives; and a need for a more creative use of time for planning.
The 181 primary school teachers who responded to this question made a total of 18 suggestions for ways of reducing excessive workload.
Sixty proposed more non-contact time.
Thirty-six identified the need for more learning support staff to work as teaching
assistants.
Thirty-six suggested more streamlined planning and preparation as well as the use of
centrally prepared lesson plans and resources.
Twenty-eight teachers thought improvements to ICT and use of laptops were a
solution.
Nineteen wanted a reduction in assessment, testing and marking. Thirteen identified the need to reduce administration and paperwork.
Eleven thought developing the role of the teaching assistant an important option. Ten said there needs to be a slimmed down and more flexible curriculum.
Among other proposals, there were nine who identified the need to reduce class size;
nine proposed re-modelling OfSTED; seven identified the need for more administrative staff; and six said there is a need for less team planning while four suggested the opposite that there is a need for more team planning. Other suggestions included fewer administrative tasks; a need to stream or set for class grouping; change in the culture that expects teachers to work out of school hours; improved parental contact before school and an end to annual changes by the Government.
The 592 secondary school teachers who responded to the question on solutions for excessive workload identified 17 items as options to consider.
One hundred and eighty six said that more teaching assistants and clerical support
staff to take up administrative work/ assist with lesson preparation.
One hundred and twenty three teachers proposed more protected non-contact time. Ninety-nine identified smaller classes.
Seventy identified the need to reduce the amount of administration and paperwork
linked to formal assessment, marking and record keeping.
Sixty-one proposed enhanced use of ICT.
Forty-five identified improvements in pupil behaviour and the system of school
discipline.
xix
Seventeen proposed more streamlined planning and preparation as well as the use of
centrally prepared lesson plans and resources.
Other ideas included: 16 who identified a need for realistic expectations and more
even distribution of targets and a better match of time allowance to complete tasks required of teachers; eight mentioned the need for less coursework; seven proposed improvements to systems of school administration and communication; and six identified the need for a reduced number of meetings in school. A small number also suggested better planned and appropriate continuing professional development; fewer initiatives requiring constant change; that the focus of teachers should be on teaching; less homework and reduced use of ICT.
2.7 Job satisfaction
In addition to seeking a reduction in the hours worked by teachers, the Project was also concerned to enrich teachers’ own work and increase their job satisfaction and commitment. In that context, the questionnaire included a set of statements that represented attributes of a job where satisfaction would contribute to an overall sense of satisfaction about work. Teachers were asked to respond to a set of statements and to indicate their responses on a six-point scale from ‘Very Strongly Dissatisfied’ (VSDis) to ‘Very Strongly Satisfied’ (VSSat). In the Report, this scale has been reduced to a binary divide of satisfied and dissatisfied. The statements on job satisfaction have been divided into two sets, one that is focused on items related to an individual’s own job and the other focused on their views of how some organizational issues impact on their job satisfaction. The tables show three types of data: the pattern of response in 2003 to each statement as a percentage of those replying; the mean response in 2003 and then the change in the mean response for those who completed the same statements in 2002 and 2003. The mean is calculated by scoring all the responses on a scale from 1 (very strong dissatisfaction) to 6 (very strong satisfaction); on this basis, the mid point score is 3.5 so that any mean above that level represents a level of satisfaction whereas a mean below 3.5 would indicate a level of dissatisfaction. The number of
respondents that is reported refers to those who replied in 2003. Each statement shows the response by type of school: special, primary and secondary.
Table 2.7: Teachers’ Job Satisfaction – Personal (response shown as a percentage)
Please indicate what you
think about each statement: Type N Dissatisfied Satisfied 2003 mean change 02-03
Spec 69 7 93 4.93 -.12 Prim 180 9 91 4.73 .08 The actual job itself
Sec 622 18 82 4.45 .04 Spec 68 4 96 4.94 -.08
Prim 184 8 92 4.67 .09 The degree to which you feel
‘motivated’ by your job
Sec 625 18 82 4.34 -.08 Spec 66 11 89 4.58 .16
Prim 183 17 83 4.39 .27 The kind of work you are
required to perform
Sec 630 33 67 3.93 .10 Spec 68 15 85 4.59 -.16
Prim 183 20 80 4.44 .06 The degree to which you feel
you can personally develop or
grow in your job Sec 629 25 75 4.15 -.01 Spec 68 16 84 4.54 -.19
Prim 184 14 86 4.44 .12 The degree to which your job
taps the range of skills which
you feel you possess Sec 629 29 71 4.04 .03 Spec 68 18 82 4.53 -.09
Prim 184 14 86 4.44 .03 The degree to which you feel
extended by your job
Sec 631 27 73 4.05 .03 The first two statements in the Table refer to satisfaction and motivation and it is apparent that the overall assessment of teachers about their work was positive, though there are
differences across the three types of schools. Thus, on all responses to the six positively worded ‘personal’ statements, the highest level of satisfaction was from teachers in special
schools. In 2003, these range from a mean of 4.53 to 4.94, while the final column on change since 2002 shows these as negligible. The responses of primary school teachers were next highest in level of satisfaction, ranging from 4.49 to 4.73 with the change from 2002 to 2003 also showing negligible change. Whilst the responses from the secondary school teachers in the Project were the lowest of all three sectors, ranging from 3.93 to 4.45, they were all positive with the change from 2002 also negligible.
Relationships between working hours, job satisfaction and motivation are complex and some highly motivated people gain much satisfaction from their work and choose to work long hours. However, given the publicly expressed concern about the hours worked by teachers and the Project’s goal of reducing hours, it was reasonable to propose an hypothesis that for most teachers, job satisfaction and motivation would be negatively correlated with hours worked. In other words, longer working hours would be associated with less job satisfaction and lower motivation.
Further analysis was undertaken, therefore, to examine the relationship between job satisfaction and hours worked. Among the six statements in Table 2.7, attitudes to the first two – the ‘job itself’ and ‘motivation’ – were judged to be more likely to be related to or influenced by working hours. The hypothesis was applied in three ways. The first two comparisons examined the relationship between hours worked and levels of job satisfaction and motivation in 2002 and 2003. In 2002 and 2003, no significant relationships were
established between reported hours and levels of job satisfaction and levels of motivation; this was the case in special, primary and secondary schools. However, when change in hours between 2002 and 2003 was examined, the results for teachers in secondary schools showed a significant correlation between job satisfaction and change in hours worked and it was in the expected direction with job satisfaction increasing as hours fall. There was no comparable change in the results for the statement on ‘motivation’ or for either statement among teachers, in special and primary schools.
These results indicate the complexity of these issues. The response of secondary school teachers to a fall in their hours indicates that the relationship cannot be ignored. Yet, it is clear that there is no simple predictive general relationship between hours worked – or even change in hours worked – and a sense of job satisfaction or motivation. Table 2.7 shows that there were higher levels of job satisfaction in special and primary schools compared with secondary schools, but these cannot be explained by differences in hours worked. More likely is that teachers’ sense of satisfaction and motivation is embedded in a larger set of beliefs and attitudes, such as commitment to teaching, working relations with children and colleagues or the ethos of the school, and that securing higher levels of satisfaction involves a wider set of changes than focusing on hours alone.
Table.2.8: Teachers’ Job Satisfaction – Organization (response shown as a percentage)
Please indicate what you
think about each statement: Type N Dissatisfied Satisfied 2003 mean change 02-03
Spec 68 44 56 3.81 .12 Prim 182 36 64 3.93 -.03 Communication and the way
information flows around your
organization Sec 631 58 42 3.32 .03 Spec 66 35 65 4.17 -.02
Prim 180 22 78 4.22 -.14 The style of supervision that
your superiors use
Sec 621 41 59 3.74 -.09 Spec 68 41 59 3.84 -.09
Prim 180 31 69 3.98 .15 The way changes are
implemented
Sec 627 55 45 3.35 -.05 Spec 69 36 64 3.87 -.04
Prim 183 32 68 3.88 -.26 The way in which conflicts are
resolved in your organization
Sec 626 46 54 3.53 -.07 Spec 69 17 83 4.46 .22
Prim 183 23 77 4.23 -.22 The psychological ‘feel’ or
climate that dominates your
xxi
Spec 68 31 69 4.12 -.05 Prim 181 18 82 4.23 -.07 The design or shape of your
organization’s structure
Sec 629 43 57 3.57 -.07 The pattern of response to the statements on satisfaction with the organization were similar to the pattern for the statements more directly linked to a person’s job; special schools reported the highest level of satisfaction and secondary schools the lowest. In all three types of schools, however, the satisfaction scores were in a lower range. In special schools, the mean scores for each statement ranged from 3.81 to 4.46, all showed a level of satisfaction but lower than for the ‘personal‘statements. The change from 2002 was small with four showing a negligible fall and two a small increase in the mean score. For the primary schools in the Project, the mean responses all showed some level of satisfaction with the range from 3.88 to 4.23. The change from 2002 showed a very small fall in every mean score with the exception of one item that showed a small rise. In the case of the secondary schools, the mean scores for the six statements ranged from 3.32 to 3.74. For two of these scores, one on
communication and the other on how change is implemented, levels of dissatisfaction were higher than levels of satisfaction; for the other four statements, the average scores reported a level of satisfaction but only slightly above the mean. The change from 2002 was negligible.
2.8 Quality of life
A set of statements on quality of life included items that were related to work but also included items that locate the consequences of work in the broader context of a teacher’s personal life and aspirations. The statements are presented in a different format to the original survey with Table 2.9 showing the responses to a set of positive statements and 2.10 to more negative statements.
Table 2.9: Quality of Life – Positive
Please indicate what you think about each statement:
Type N Disagree Agree 2003
Mean 02-03 Change Spec 67 15 85 4.24 .07 Prim 183 16 84 4.30 .01 I effectively manage my working time Sec 629 20 80 4.16 -.29 Spec 69 11 89 4.46 -.62 Prim 182 10 90 4.51 -.92 I feel that my work in
this school is valued
Sec 627 22 78 4.09 -1.11 Spec 68 4 96 4.74 .84
Prim 184 11 89 4.64 .41 I enjoy my work most
of the time
Sec 624 14 86 4.39 .41 Spec 68 5 95 4.54 -.42
Prim 179 19 81 4.22 -1.00 I feel that the work I
do is a good use of
my time Sec 621 25 75 4.07 -.92 Spec 68 44 56 3.85 -.97
Prim 179 40 60 3.84 -1.06 I enjoy work now
more than I did 12
months ago Sec 623 46 54 3.59 -1.04 Spec 66 18 82 4.21 -.14
Prim 179 26 74 4.05 -.57 I know that if my
workload is too much I can discuss it with a senior manager in school
Sec 628 42 58 3.57 -.93
The six statements in Table 2.9 are positive statements about work and the working
environment. The overall response to these statements was positive with most of the mean scores for 2003 greater than four and represented a position between agreement (a score of four) and strong agreement (a score of five). The least positive response was to the
statement ‘I enjoy work now more than 12 months ago’. Here, the mean response was less than four, in the range between ‘disagree’ (three) and ‘agree’ (four). Moreover, the change from 2002 showed a marked shift towards a more negative position with the special schools
