Teacher Workload Study

Interim Report

August 2001


Contents

Section                                                                                                                                     

Executive summary

0.    Introduction

1.    Overview of teacher and headteacher workloads

Introduction

A typical working week

Work in the school holidays

Variations over a school year

Other work

Evening, home and weekend work

Non-contact time

Variations for different types of teacher

Variations for different types of school

Total hours worked in a year

Wider workload issues

Conclusion

2.    Analysis of teacher and headteacher activities

Introduction

Activity 1: Teaching

Activity 2: Non-teaching contact

Activity 3: Lesson planning, marking and preparation

Activity 4:  School and staff management

Activity 5: General Administration

Activity 6: Individual/ Professional activity

Wider issues

3.    Implications for resources and implementation

Role of school management and governance

Teachers and teaching time

Use of support staff

Development of Information Communications Technology (ICT)

The working environment

Role of central government/ agencies/ LEAs/ OFSTED

4.    Proposed workplan for Phase Two

 

 


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, 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
– Hours per week

 

59.0

 

64.3

 

58.0

– Hours spent teaching

5.4

1.4

3.2

All other teaching staff
– Hours per week

 

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.


2.           Analysis of teacher and headteacher activities

Introduction

2.1          In this section we review the detailed tasks undertaken by teachers and headteachers and in each case discuss:

·                 What the task involves

·                 The time spent on it

·                 The drivers for it.

2.2          For each task we then carry out an assessment of the extent to which the task:

·                 Is necessary at all

·                 Could be redesigned in some way to reduce time whilst preserving quality

·                 Could be carried out by someone other than a headteacher/ teacher

·                 Could be better supported by other staff or by ICT.

Activity 1: Teaching

2.3          Using the OME categorisation, “teaching” includes: teachers teaching their own lessons; covering for absent teachers; assisting pupils in another teacher’s lesson; registration; test administration; and educational visits. Classroom teachers in primary and secondary schools spend on average around 40% of their time on teaching activities.  Headteachers and deputies in secondary schools spend a little over half as long as primary school heads and deputies on teaching activities. OME data for total hours for this activity are shown below.  Detailed activities within “teaching” are discussed below the table.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

3.5

10.0

19.7

21.2

Primary

6.2

18.0

-

20.5

Special

-

-

-

19.6

- figures not available

Teaching own lessons

2.4          This includes teachers and heads teaching their own timetabled lessons, taking tutorials and teaching outside formal lesson-time, for example homework classes.  The figures from the OME study are shown below.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

2.7

8.5

16.6

17.9

Primary

3.9

16.0

-

18.1

Special

-

-

-

16.3

- figures not available

2.5          Interestingly, given that it is the core activity for teachers, teaching itself was perceived as an excessively burdensome task in about 10% of teacher interviews.  In such cases it was usually related either to views on the curriculum not meeting the needs of pupils, or being overly restrictive, or that the amount of teaching was perceived to leave too little time for other activities.  Against that it was also an activity that many teachers said they would like to do more of; in particular they wanted to do more one-to-one or small group teaching.

2.6          Many teachers noted the changing nature of their teaching due to the perceived requirements of various new initiatives.  On the whole, teachers reported an enthusiasm for some initiatives such as the Literacy and Numeracy strategies, but reported concerns about the disruption to their teaching from designated training. In terms of teaching approaches more generally, we found that what might be termed “traditional” approaches continued to be the norm.  Most teachers taught in classes with one teacher dedicated to a group of pupils. There was limited evidence of team teaching and no evidence in the schools we visited of innovative teaching arrangements such as multi-age grouping or integrated curricula.  Some schools were exploring alternative structural arrangements to challenge traditional notions of time and class sizes.  There were examples of schools where pupils were grouped in varying sizes (including a school that ran classes as large as 45 for older primary pupils, with positive results and support from parents).

2.7          Some concern was expressed in special schools about the changing nature of teaching to fulfil perceived government requirements in new initiatives.  Teachers in this sector indicated that some initiatives were insufficiently sensitive to the needs of their pupils.  Some such teachers felt therefore that the new initiatives had had a detrimental effect on their teaching.

2.8          We observed in our fieldwork schools seeking to make better use of teaching time in five ways:

·                 Schools employing floating teachers to release other colleagues from lessons in order to create more non-contact time

·                 One school employed team teaching as policy in one department.  This involved merging two classes, in which the planning involved in team teaching was shared and therefore reduced

·                 We saw schools that used in-class support teachers staff to teach part of the lesson.  One school used Learning Support Assistants to undertake whole class reading activities, and this allowed the teacher more time to plan and prepare. Some schools employ support staff to do cover duty when teachers are absent

·                 We saw online curriculum solutions to reducing teacher contact time.  One school had begun to transfer its post-16 curriculum onto its network, thus allowing pupils to access the curriculum at any time.  The school was therefore able to reduce the number of post-16 lessons required to teach courses

·                 The National Grid for Learning and New Opportunities Fund (NOF) has already installed Electronic Whiteboards in some schools and provided training.  However, we found very little evidence of use of these Electronic Whiteboards in the schools we visited; and many headteachers and teachers indicated that NOF training was poor.

Covering absent teachers’ lessons

2.9          Where another teacher is absent, teachers and headteachers are subject to requirements in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document required to provide cover, unless a supply teacher is available.  The times spent doing this, as identified  by OME, are shown below.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

0.5

0.7

0.7

0.8

Primary

1.1

0.5

-

0.1

Special

-

-

-

0.2

- figures not available

2.10      The OME study found that the additional time spent by secondary classroom teachers on this activity compared to primary classroom teachers accounts for most of the difference in total teaching time between those secondary and primary school teachers.  Our fieldwork confirmed that secondary teachers are required to cover for, typically,  at least one hour and often two or three hours each week.  The average loss of non-contact time for secondary teachers (on the Main Pay Scale) is though doing this is 1.54 hours per week, of which providing cover forms the major part.  One a secondary teacher in the Teacher Workload Study recorded an annual total of fifty-five hours for cover.

2.11      The usual alternative to ad hoc cover by other teachers is to use supply cover.  However, supply teachers interviewed for the Teacher Workload Study indicated that they were often ‘just babysitting’ and that the shortage of supply teachers had meant that for many schools it was simply a matter of ‘getting bodies in front of pupils’.  Teachers we spoke to said that in general a temporary supply teacher is less likely to provide quality lessons that ensure continuity than regular teachers.  In addition, use of supply cover did not always save as much time as might be thought.  Despite the comments from supply teachers above, substantive teachers were nevertheless reported that they were investing in additional preparation in terms of setting work for supply teachers, and often additional marking.   (They said that because the need for the substantive teacher to understand what was learned in the lesson led the teacherhim or her to ask for more written pupil work than usual). 

2.12      Less usually, but perhaps more effectively, some schools had raised standard FTE counts to factor in two or three floating teachers to meet supply needs.  These teachers were key staff within the school, knew the pupils they were teaching and had time to meet (albeit on an ad hoc basis) with the staff member they were covering to discuss programmes of study. An alternative strategy was the employment of support staff (also known to teacher colleagues and the pupils) to supervise pre-set tasks with access to a senior member of staff in the event of any difficulties.  We have also been told of (but have not visited) schools where a dedicated full time ICT suite and technician are available to provide a learning environment for pupils when their teacher is absent.

Assisting pupils in another teacher’s lesson

2.13      This activity describes a teacher supporting teaching where another teacher is already present. The typical times spent doing this, as identified by OME, are shown below.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

Primary

0.4

0.2

-

0.3

Special

-

-

-

0.9

 

2.14      There was limited evidence of specialist teachers providing support in primary schools.  In one school a specialist music teacher provided a comprehensive programme, but the classroom teacher still attended during this lesson.  A comparison with Australia is interesting, where It is useful to compare UK practice with other countries. In Australia, for example, specialist teachers (from a range of areas including modern foreign languages, physical education, music, design and technology) provide non-contact time for all primary teachers. In this way, teachers do not have to prepare in these areas and neither do they have to be skilled in the full range of subjects.  Teachers in our own study identified the breadth of the curriculum as a clear driver of workload. 

Registration/ general classroom management

2.15      This activity includes pastoral contact and provision of counselling sessions, in addition to registration time.  The times spent doing it are shown below.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

*

0.1

1.4

1.6

Primary

0.2

1.1

-

1.5

Special

-

-

-

1.2

 

2.16      Our fieldwork confirms that teachers spend at least 1.5 hours taking the register and providing pastoral support to their pupils.  The driver for this task is the need to record all absences. Some schools have introduced swipe card systems for registration.  While there are some issues associated with such systems (our experience in the Reducing Bureaucracy Project suggests that not all schools which have invested in electronic registration regard the change as having been successful) they have the potential to negate the need for registration time.  In this way they can save an estimated 1.4 hours per week, and traditional ‘form tutor’ time can be dedicated to pastoral issues or teaching.  In our own study we only observed one example of a swipe card system. More common was the use of Optical Mark Readers to record absences.  However, teachers in these schools still spent significant amounts of time taking attendance details. 

2.17      Follow-up to pupil attendance issues is a separate task but a related issue, and in general we found teachers undertaking this more than would seem necessary.  Alternative solutions to registration issues included the electronic generation of letters to parents regarding pupil absences and the employment of the range of support and specialist staff to undertake all aspects of this task. 

Administering tests

2.18      This includes exam invigilation, and internal and external tests and assessments.  Typical times are shown below.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

*

0.2

0.2

0.3

Primary

0.1

0.2

-

0.1

Special

-

-

-

0.1

 

2.19      This activity is strongly seasonal, with a peak in many schools relating to end of year (and to a lesser extent, end of term) tests and exams, although increasingly modular assessment approaches are beginning to weaken this pattern.  In the light of this seasonality it is not surprising that those we interviewed in the Summer term visits of Phase One were more active in this area than the teachers who recorded the hours in the table above, in March.

2.20      Increasingly, schools are required to administer a wide range of tests.  From as early as KS1 teachers are required to test pupils to satisfy the requirements of the National Curriculum.  In primary schools SATs tests were reported to have a significant impact on teacher workload. Not only did teachers feel under pressure to identify and meet targets and to teach towards the test, the additional marking load associated with SATs was clearly an issue.  Some schools have practice SATs tests which further increase the burden on teachers.

2.21      Turning to exam administration more broadly, teachers were also most likely to be given the responsibility for exam administration including contacting the Awarding Bodies, managing internal examination arrangements, invigilation and co-ordinating the return of papers to Awarding Bodies. Exam administration was amongst the top ten tasks considered to be “excessive”. 

 

2.22      There was a perception that work had been moved from Awarding Bodies to teachers.  One teacher wrote to us to say that

“I have had to take home and mark 36 GCSE compositions and tapes of 7 A/S solo coursework recitals.  This takes hours and hours to do, just  listening to them, never mind assessing them according to complex criteria and  grids.  A few years ago, an examiner came in and examined all the practicals.” 

2.23      The teacher went on to say that the supply cover arrangements did not meet more than a third of the time required to do this, and that teachers were expected to make up the difference in their own time.  Many of those teachers who wrote directly to the study did so in order to raise issues about examinations and modular coursework burdens.

2.24      Invigilation was reported as is a particularly time consuming task.  We came across a school where up to seven teachers invigilated examinations for one hundred and fifty pupils for a two hour period.  Whilst there may be a case for some teachers being present during invigilation, many schools in the study demonstrated a shift to the employment of non-teaching invigilators and commented positively on the impact that this initiative had had on teacher workload.  This is an example of teacher time appearing to be “free”, even though the activity is time-intensive and could be done by non-teachers.  In the primary sector we encountered greater support for the notion that teachers should be the ones to invigilate, on the basis that they wished to make the experience of SATs as comfortable to pupils as they could.

Educational visits

2.25      This includes the tasks of administering as well as participating in visits, whether a one-day local trip or an overseas visit.  Time spent on these activities is shown below.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.4

Primary

0.5

0.2

-

0.4

Special

-

-

-

1.0

 

2.26      Many teachers we spoke to indicated that visits and trips impacted significantly on their workload.  There were two key aspects to this impact – one was the amount of time spent preparing and administering the trip, the other was the actual time spent on the visit/trip.  Most teachers were keen to chose and if necessary visit venues on the basis that they wanted/needed to familiarise themselves with the facilities and curricular links ahead of further planning.  The administration of trips and visits was, however, demanding of teachers’ time.  Collection of forms, money, and permission slips from pupils as well as the completion of regulatory forms were identified as time intensive tasks. The increasing concern associated with pupil safety along with the requirement to incorporate visits and trips into some programmes of work were identified as key drivers for these tasks.

2.27      A number of schools had strategies to support teachers in planning and administering school trips/visits.  In a small number of schools support staff undertook, and developed expertise and appropriate systems for, all administrative tasks associated with trips/visits including collection of monies and forms, finalising details with venues, booking buses.

2.28      Against that, our fieldwork revealed that many teachers consciously choose to take pupils on visits and trips because they enjoy them. Some trips and visits are not in the same category as other after hours activities such as marking or preparing. As one P.E. teacher said,

‘There’s a huge difference between marking coursework and going on a ski trip.  Coursework is a requirement – taking a group of pupils skiing is my choice and fun’. 

Activity 2: Non-teaching contact

2.29      Non-teaching contact describes any contact with pupils and their families other than formal teaching, such as supervision in break times, extra-curricular activities, detentions, parents evenings.  Average non-teaching contact times are higher for all types of teacher in secondary compared to primary schools.  Total time on this activity, as identified by OME, is shown in the table below, followed by a discussion of the detailed activities within it.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

10.2

9.6

6.3

5.3

Primary

8.4

5.8

-

4.9

Special

-

-

-

5.9

 

Supervising pupils

2.30      This includes supervision during breaks, assembly and before or after lessons.  We found that teachers commonly supervised pupils before and after school (particularly where buses were involved in transporting pupils to and from school) and during break times.  These duties were often considered burdensome and impacting on teachers' ability to either 'recharge' or prepare resources for the teaching sessions.  Some observation sessions revealed teachers spending the early part of the morning and morning break supervising pupils and immediately returning to resume teaching without a break.  Teachers regularly commented on the difficulties of taking toilet breaks on their 'duty' days. 

2.31      Large numbers of schools have implemented lunchtime duty structures that incorporate the use of support staff for supervision.  In many schools however, the senior administrators (including the Headteacher) provide 'backup support'. This has an obvious workload implication for senior staff in that they are required to be on duty for all lunchtime breaks.  The clear issue identified by school leaders was the need to balance the requirement to provide supervision with the need for supervisors to be confident in managing pupils’ behaviour during these times.  Whilst duty was generally viewed as burdensome, most teachers suggested it was they who were best placed for this role. Teachers, it was claimed, were better equipped to manage pupils’ behaviour.  Not only did they have perceived authority (which influenced pupils’ behaviour) but they knew pupils by name and were aware of potential ‘trouble spots’.  They were also able to use professional judgements in identifying potential safety risks or behaviours that impacted on pupils’ general welfare (e.g. bullying in the playground). A central concern associated with duty was the requirement in many schools for teachers to document and record incidents of misbehaviour.  As one teacher noted:

“I accept that I have to do playground duty and it probably has to be done by teachers. The real issue is that if I do spot a couple of pupils having a tussle in the playground I then have to record everything I saw, take witness statements and follow up with the head of year and pastoral staff.  We have different forms to fill according to the incidents observed and there is a whole system of documenting and recording around pupil behaviour that is terribly time consuming.  All I want to do is finish the duty and get on with the next lesson but I can finish a duty with a whole pile of extra work that's been generated in the fifteen minute break.”

2.32      At one level this comment highlights a school with clear frameworks for managing and recording pupils' behaviour.  On the other hand, the critical issue for this teacher is that duty does not just involve the fifteen minutes spent in the playground. In some schools we noted that the level of documentation and the systems available to track pupil behaviour were time-consuming and cumbersome. Some of these tasks were directly linked to playground duty others were linked to classroom behaviour. While some teachers suggested increasing pressure to document many aspects of pupils' mis/behaviour, it was not always clear whether the imperatives for documentation were locally driven or were linked to broader statutory requirements.  In Phase Two we will explore this more thoroughly.

2.33      A number of schools expressed the view that recognised that many of the behavioural issues arising during breaks resulted from inadequate space for pupils to meet and the lack of alternative activities during these times.  A secondary school librarian suggested that on wet cold days, she could have up to one hundred pupils in the library 'seeking refuge'.  A number of schools already have extra-curricular activities (such as access to technology suites) available during break times and others were considering strategies for implementing these.  Some suggested that teachers might be paid to provide more such activities, although clearly this would not reduce workload levels.

Assemblies

2.34      Primary and secondary schools have regular assemblies - many on a daily basis for a period of twenty minutes each day.  Teachers reported that preparing and taking assemblies impacted on their workload, particularly if it was their turn to lead the assembly and/or provide a class item/performance. For teachers not required to conduct or contribute to assemblies, the time was often considered as 'down time' and in many cases there were twenty or so teachers sitting around in the hall.  Some schools had established rotas for teachers to use some assembly time for preparation.  However, teachers reported that the requirement to bring pupils to the assembly point meant that the time was only suited for quick tasks.  Nonetheless, teachers were grateful for this flexibility. 

·                 Some primary teachers raised issues associated with the impact that assemblies (particularly those held in the morning) have on teaching time.  These teachers were not refuting the value of assemblies; rather, they suggested that assemblies took 'prime teaching time' on a daily basis and this meant they 'struggled to get through the heavy demands of the curriculum'.

Extra-curricular activities

2.35      This includes non-timetabled activities such as sport, music, drama, clubs and societies.

2.36      Many teachers we spoke to in the course of our fieldwork were involved in the provision of extra curricular activities although there were comments made that suggest that the increasing demands on teachers' time had reduced the overall provision of extra curricular activities in some schools.  Teachers provided a range of lunchtime, after school and on some occasions, week-end (e.g. sports, drama rehearsals) for extra- curricular activities.  Music, sports, crafts, technology, homework and exam classes were all noted in secondary schools.   A number of primary schools offered lunch-time and after-school  'clubs' including cooking, choir, recorder, technology.

2.37      These activities were all considered an important complement to the curriculum. Teachers typically gave voluntarily of their time without remuneration and suggested that they enjoyed taking these activities and/or that the activities were important in supporting pupils' learning.  Exam revision classes were common in many secondary schools and teachers suggested that not only were they important in preparing pupils for exams but also gave them the reassurance that every effort had been made to ensure pupils' success.

2.38      Extra-curricular activities are not necessarily core to the educational process.  Nonetheless there are many teachers, governing bodies and parents who would argue that they are essential to a comprehensive education. In the light of the diminution of time for activities such as music, arts, debating, drama in the standard teaching day, tThese activities are often the focus of extra curricular sessions.  Pressure on teachers and pupils to achieve well in examinations also serves as the driver for examination revision classes, the value of which would not generally be questioned.

Disciplining pupils

2.39      Disciplining pupils occurs in a variety of contexts within most schools.  We identified workload issues associated with supervising pupils during detention or 'in-school suspension'.  Some schools have rotas whereby teachers (including headteachers) supervise pupils in detention during break times and after schools.  In a number of schools there were pupils who had been withdrawn from mainstream classes as a disciplinary action. In addition to the obvious time implications for teachers having to sit and supervise pupils in detention, class teachers were often required to provide worksheets for pupils who were in detention.

2.40      Notwithstanding that many schools manage pupil behaviour with cohesive behaviour management policies, there was a significant number of teachers who suggested that pupil behaviour was increasingly impacting on their workload.  Some teachers felt that there was less respect for teachers and that the process of disciplining pupils was increasingly more demanding.  Some teachers also suggested that there were more pressures on schools to help and support pupils who have social and emotional needs and that they need additional specialist support from trained psychologists, social workers and health workers.

2.41      One of the most significant workload issues teachers associated with disciplining pupils was is the need for teachers to documentation and recording of pupils' misbehaviour.  Most schools have recording systems based on colour coded forms that vary according to the misdemeanour.  Teachers often found these systems time-consuming and demanding.  Forms had to be filled, copied, acted upon and filed.  Multiple handling of paperwork was a common observation, particularly in secondary schools. 

2.42      One secondary school had a bespoke information system that served as a record of all disciplinary actions - from minor to more serious.  Clerical staff entered all data from forms filled by teachers.  The resulting data base, which was linked to pupils' progress reports and results, could be accessed to provided comprehensive information on all pupils. Teachers could monitor pupil progress against disciplinary reports as well as advise parents of all behavioural incidents relating to their child. This system provided some examples of good practice, but it also demonstrated the growing perception schools have that they need to document every aspect of pupil behaviour. Teachers spoke of the increased level of surveillance and accountability - on themselves and on pupils. 

Pastoral care with individual pupils

2.43      Pastoral care responsibilities occupy significant amounts of time for teachers, with Heads of Years in secondary schools reporting higher demands in this area.  These teachers reported increasing workloads associated with following up on pupil attendance, pupil progress or discipline, matters arising from family crises and personal and social concerns raised by pupils.  Many heads of year reported having limited time (often as little as two additional hours non contact time per week) to undertake this activity.  Often they sandwiched this work between teaching, snatching small conversations in corridors and phoning colleagues or other professional support agencies for assistance or information.  Teachers reported that the workload pressure on managers meant they had less time to support their staff.

2.44      The lack of availability of support professionals (educational psychologists, educational welfare officers, social workers and counsellors) that some staff in in many secondary schools reported meant that pastoral care responsibilities tended to fall to teaching staff.  Whilst the primary focus of pastoral roles was the welfare of pupils there is an increasing requirement for documentation and administration associated with pastoral support for pupils.  A number of schools had employed dedicated secretarial staff for routine tasks such as entering data, contacting parents and typing letters in order to address the workload in this area.

Contact with parents and families

2.45      This activity includes parents’ evenings, PTA meetings and less formal time with parents and families, e.g. after lessons have finished.

2.46      All teachers reported the need to attend parent evenings. These included information/orientation meetings, progress/report meetings, open evenings, presentation and graduation evenings, school concerts/performances and the statutory meeting called to discuss the Governors’ Annual Report.  Most schools had at least two parent evenings per year, although there were some secondary schools that staggered parents' evenings for separate year levels, thus requiring some teachers to attend as many as six over the school year. Headteachers, deputy heads and pastoral support staff reported more attendance at parent meetings than other teaching staff. Teachers reported that parent evenings often resulted in additional work because of the need to prepare displays around the school.

2.47      Most teachers agree that communication with parents is an essential part of their work, but many suggested that they felt under increasing pressure to respond to parent complaints and enquiries.  Some questioned the value of the report meeting where parents had short periods of time with up to ten teachers over several hours.  Some headteachers recognised that there is a heavy burden on teachers attending meetings at the end of a full teaching day and structured short-days or half-days as recompense for teachers returning in the evening. 

2.48      Many headteachers questioned the value of the Annual Report meeting and consistently reported small numbers of parents attending these. Some headteachers suggested that information from the Annual Report could be communicated more efficiently (by making it available in local libraries, shopping centres, on the school's web page and at the school) than through the statutory meeting.

2.49      Some headteachers reported high workloads associated with Governing Body meetings, including sub-committees.

Other non-teaching activities relating to particular parents or pupils

2.50      Additional non-teaching activities relating to particular parents or pupils included attendance at school and PTA fund raising events such as fetes and fairs, choral evenings, book fairs, quiz nights etc.  Teachers in smaller schools reported that the school was often a focal point of the community and these activities were important for both the school and community.  Some teachers reported large amounts of work associated with these fund raising activities but recognised that these activities resulted in additional (and sometimes essential) resources for the school. There were teachers who suggested that schools should be funded to a level that made these activities unnecessary.

2.51      In addition to parent evenings, a significant number of teachers reported that they had regular telephone contact with parents, often in relation to pupil progress, attendance or welfare. 

2.52      Secondary school teachers identified liaison with parents in general as the second most burdensome task.  This included, in particular, follow-up to absences, but also the range of contacts described above, together with a perception that such contacts had become more difficult, and parents more demanding and less understanding or responsible for their pupils and less polite towards teachers, than they had been in the past.  This was not an issue to any notable extent for primary teachers.

Activity 3: Lesson planning, marking and preparation

2.53      This is one of the largest groupings of activities, as each of lesson planning, marking and preparation are significant in their own right.  In addition this group includes keeping records of performance, writing reports and putting up classroom displays. 

2.54      Both primary and secondary teachers spend over 30% of their time on this group of activities, and special school teachers around 27%.  Primary teachers spend around 2 hours a week more on this area, with increased time planning lessons and setting up classrooms partially offset by less time spent on marking and on writing reports.  The times identified by OME are shown below.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

2.2

9.9

13.8

16.3

Primary

4.4

16.0

-

18.2

Special

-

-

-

13.8

 

Planning and preparation

2.55      This includes a range of planning activity including preparing schemes of work, yearly and termly (or half termly) plans, plans for individual lessons, and the preparation of practical assessments and tests.

2.56      Our study has confirmed that this range of activity contributes very significantly to a teacher’s regular weekly workload and is the principal area of work undertaken by the majority of teachers during half term and longer holidays.  It is not a significant contributor to headteacher workload. However while teachers recognised that planning and preparation were essential to effective teaching, 31% of teachers interviewed identified planning as causing “excessive” workload– the second highest burden identified.  It was predominantly primary school teachers for whom this was an issue.  On the other hand this was also an activity that some teachers indicated they wanted more time for (20% of respondents wanted more preparation time and time to develop resources, and 14% wanted more lesson planning time).

2.57      Teachers in both phases reported that this area of activity had grown in significance and in the demands placed on them.  Some of these demands were driven by specific curriculum changes such as the introduction of the Literacy and Numeracy strategies and Curriculum 2000.  Individual cases of increased load often related to a changed role in the school, frequently, in the case of primary teachers, a change in the year group taught.

2.58      While it could be argued that these developments require additional planning activity only in the short term, the perception of teachers we spoke to was that curriculum change has become a permanent feature of teaching.  There were few, if any, areas of teaching in either primary, secondary or special schools where a teacher could rely on curriculum material, schemes of work and lesson plans accumulated even over a few terms to provide an on-going basis for her/his daily teaching routines.

2.59      Overall teachers believed that yearly, termly and half-termly planning were both necessary and, in terms of workload, commensurate with their importance.  There were concerns however about the lack of quality non-contact time for such planning, much of which needs to be a collaborative activity within Key Stages in primary schools and within subjects in secondary schools.  The failure of most school timetables to provide blocked non-contact time for teachers who need to plan jointly, is in our view undoubtedly a potential cause of reduced efficiency and increased workload.

2.60      There was much less consensus around the preparation of individual lesson plans. There was an acceptance amongst most teachers interviewed that they were expected to be able to account for the content, including the objectives and planned outcomes, of each lesson taught and that this required some form of written record.  The evidence of our fieldwork suggests however that there was a very wide disparity of practice in how this was achieved and that individual school policy on this had a direct impact on teacher workload.

2.61      At one end of the spectrum we observed experienced teachers in secondary schools whose lesson plan might consist of a single sheet of A4 paper with the lesson title, the lesson objectives and a few notes linking the plan to the relevant scheme of work.  Such plans took as little as five minutes to prepare, did not have to be shared with any other colleague but were retained for the record.

2.62      At the other end of the spectrum there were primary teachers who showed us very detailed, usually hand written, plans for each lesson, and who said the headteacher y were required them to submit a copy of their complete set of each week’s lesson plans to the headteacher in advance at the start of the week.  It was also not clear to us why this intense level of detailed individual lesson planning and monitoring was felt to be necessary in some schools and not in others. Except in very specific cases – the requirements made in exceptional circumstances by an OfSTED inspection for example, or in the case of a school with serious weaknesses - it was not clear to us for whose benefit this enhanced level of activity was taking place nor whether anyone, other than the teachers themselves, were likely to need to refer to such detailed accounts of individual lessons.

2.63      We have concluded that in a significant number of primary schools the workload created by such school level requirements may be disproportionate to the value it adds.    Even on the limited evidence of this study it appears to be a major contributor to excess workload, stress and low morale among primary school teachers.

2.64      Preparing teaching and learning resources was regarded as more burdensome than planning.  In terms of preparation there is clearly always going to be a need to ensure the right materials, worksheets, reference books and other stimuli are available before commencing a lesson.  In some subjects there is support from technicians for this.  In some schools, classroom assistants help with this task.  In a very few, resources are scanned and stored on CD ROM, for the teacher to download and perhaps display on PowerPoint; but this last model is very much the exception.

Marking pupil work

2.65      This includes marking work done in class, homework and marking exams and tests.  Marking as an activity was relatively low down the list of “excessive” tasks identified by teachers, reflecting perhaps that they regard it as an inevitable part of the job.  Around 10% of teachers identified it as the task they would like more time to undertake.  Nonetheless it is a significant consumer of teacher time and therefore merits discussion.

2.66      The evidence collected through interview and observation confirms that while all teachers are involved in marking class work, homework and exams and tests, the amount of time spent on marking is greatest in secondary schools. 

2.67      Differing circumstances lead to marking having different impacts on the workload of secondary school teachers.  Those circumstances include:

·                 The number of classes or sets taught by the individual teacher

·                 The incidence of external and internal assessments in the year groups taught by the teacher in question

·                 The nature of the subject and in particular whether it involved marking creative writing, essays or the use of foreign languages

·                 The coursework content of examination courses.

2.68      Teachers reported that the incidence of marking was uneven through the year with mock exams, attainment tests and the marking and moderation of examination coursework causing peaks at various times in the ongoing weekly marking workload.  Some of the peaks (again these varied according to subject) could only be managed by significant amounts of holiday working.  In one example 5 days of the Christmas holiday were devoted to marking 60 English GCSE mock examination scripts each containing 9 separate pieces of creative writing.

2.69      Teachers felt under pressure to mark a high proportion of class work and homework.  Not only did they feel that this, and the recording of such marks, was important in terms of the pupil’s learning and the monitoring of progress, but also it was expected both by pupils and their parents that set work would be marked and done so promptly.  However some teachers did express concerns about the open-ended nature of those expectations, the amount of time spent marking and its value to the educational progress of individual pupils. 

2.70      Although marking was a tedious, repetitive task for many teachers, they felt constrained to mark as much work as possible. Some schools and/or departments within schools had explicit marking policies, which set out how many pieces of work per pupil per week should be marked.  However some teachers did indicate that they wanted help with marking techniques to increase their own efficiency, and clearer policy guidance (and the management of parental expectations) on issues such as whether all spelling and grammar mistakes should invariably be corrected in all subjects by all teachers.

Recording and reporting on pupil performance

2.71      This activity includes the periodic recording of scores in internal and external assessments and tests including recording and entering data on paper or electronic forms, and the preparation of reports on pupil progress both for parents and others including annual reports, Records of Achievement and in the case of children with special educational needs, individual education plans (IEPs).

2.72      Record keeping and report writing were the fifth and sixth most likely tasks to be regarded by teachers as “excessive”.  The evidence from our study is that all teachers have significant responsibilities relating to the recording and analysis of pupil performance data and to regular reporting to parents on pupil performance and progress. This is an area of work that has increased in significance educationally with consequences for the amount of time outside the classroom which teachers spend on it.

2.73      This study confirms a number of points which we have observed in other studies, notably the Reducing Bureaucratic Burdens Project where pupil data management and reporting have been the principal areas of project work with both primary and secondary schools.   .  The key points are:

·                 The systems used in schools for recording and analysing pupil data, and the links, if any, which exist with report writing systems are inadequate, underdeveloped and not standardised.  The most commonly available system in schools (SIMS Assessment Manager) is widely regarded as outdated, inflexible and inappropriate

·                 Some schools have developed home-grown systems which are designed to meet teacher and school needs and provide links to report writing software.  Some such school developed systems are now being marketed commercially

·                 Teachers do not have the ‘when required’ access to ICT which enables them to make good use of the limited systems which do exist.  This is a particular problem where large numbers of teachers have to complete tasks (e.g. annual reports or IEPs) to a common deadline

·                 Many teachers, rightly, feel that data entry could be undertaken by someone other than a teacher.  Furthermore the evidence suggests that schools are a long way from achieving the goal of a single point of entry for data and the availability of that data for all purposes for which it is required within and outside the school.

2.74      In addition to these points the study found that in relation to report writing:

·                 There was a considerable administrative burden on teachers in proofing, chasing and collating reports especially in secondary schools in their capacity as form tutors or Year Heads

·                 The work was cyclical and resulted in significant turbulence in normal work routines

·                 Policies on the amount of reporting varied from school to school – schools choosing to send out termly reports required considerably more teacher time to achieve this

·                 Teachers were generally reconciled to the advantages of word processed reports, in most cases using standard or personal statement banks, but were often frustrated by poor software or lack of access.  In addition, particularly in some primary schools, there was resistance to anything generated “by a machine” on a topic as sensitive as the relaying of information to parents about their children’s progress.

Setting up/ tidying classroom and displaying pupil work

2.75      This includes the setting up of classrooms, tidying of classrooms at the end of the school day, preparation and maintenance of basic classroom resources, and displaying and mounting pupil work and putting up information for pupils.

2.76      Our observations and interviews suggested that primary teachers feel less well supported in these routine, and often low level, but what they consider to be essential tasks than was the case 5 or 10 years ago.  For that reason it was amongst the most likely of tasks to be considered to cause “excessive” work.  The reason suggested by teachers for this was that the enhanced role of classroom assistants as teacher assistants with specific pupil related duties, often linked to the numeracy Numeracy and literacy Literacy sStrategies, had resulted in the loss of much of the traditional basic support for setting up, resource preparation, tidying, display and the many other tasks which were formerly delegated to a classroom assistant with a general support role.

2.77      However some teachers regarded aspects of classroom preparation, and in particular the display of pupils’ work, as intrinsic to their teaching style and something they wish to undertake personally whatever the impact on their workload.  Any reconsideration of support to teachers in this area needs to respect reflect the fact that different teachers have different needs.

2.78      Some teachers In in secondary schools reported that, teacher workload is increased in some areas by the lack of appropriate support for setting up classrooms. The main concerns related to the lack of technical support available in the preparation and maintenance of resources in subject areas such as media studies, PE, and modern languages where teachers had to procure, maintain and set up audio visual, ICT and other technical teaching/learning aids without any entitlement to technician support.

Activity 4:  School and staff management

2.79      This includes the key areas of strategic and financial management, managing and appraising staff, managing external relationships and – of increasing significance - the process of seeking out and bidding for additional funds, which was reported to us as an area of increasing significance.

2.80      Clearly, for the majority of heads in all phases, and secondary school deputies, school and staff management consumes the largest amount of time in the whole week. Overall, secondary school heads spend over 25% more time on this area of activity compared with primary heads, although the time spent on this activity by primary school heads seems to be on the increase, and they appear to be reducing their regular teaching commitments accordingly (see below).  Staff meetings and contact with other teachers account for most of the major differences.  Secondary deputies spend over twice as long on school and staff management than primary deputies, with classroom teachers in primary and special schools spending greater time on management than classroom teachers in secondary schools.

2.81      The times spent on this activity as identified by OME are set out below.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

33.5

20.6

5.9

3.1

Primary

26.6

9.4

-

4.0

Special

-

-

-

5.0

 

2.82      There are many variables - and many drivers - affecting this aspect of work and, crucially, both how positively people feel about it and how sustainable they feel their activity levels will be over time.

2.83      Clearly important is the extent to which headteachers themselves have time free from teaching to devote to the overall school and staff management. This is not wholly related to the particular phase (primary, secondary or special) of the school.  We encountered heads both of large secondary schools and of small primary schools still willingly maintaining a significant teaching commitment, and also heads of schools of varying size - including large secondary and relatively small primary schools, who had felt the need to withdraw from all regular teaching commitments in order to concentrate on school leadership and management.

2.84      This increased tendency to reduce the head's teaching commitment in order to cope with the increased demands seems to be identifiable even since the 2000 OME Study – although the extent to which the trend in our sample reflects a national one is unclear given it is based on only 48 headteachers.

 

Headteacher teaching hours

OME – March 2000

Headteacher teaching hours

Current fieldwork

 

Secondary

3.5

1.4

Reduction of 60%

Primary

6.3

5.4

Reduction of 13%

Special

-

3.2

 

 

2.85      Possibly of greater significance, however, is the extent to which other senior people (whether teaching or support colleagues) are available to support the head, and if so, whether they have sufficient time and expertise to contribute fully and effectively to this exercise.

2.86      Many heads reported very favourably on the calibre of their colleagues - teaching and support - but nevertheless believed that operating within available resources, they had been unable to develop suitably effective support arrangements. The heads in our recent fieldwork were asked to rate the support available to them in terms of senior management, administrative support, and ICT systems.  In terms of the senior management support available to them, 30% of heads rated this to be below expectations. 20% rated the administrative support available to them to be below their expectations, and 57% rated the support available to them in terms of ICT systems to be below their expectations.

2.87      This seemed to be a significant factor in heads being feeling unable to delegate work as they would wish, leading them to retain activities that were clearly best carried out by staff other than headteachers. A related and significant point has to do with the time available for primary deputy heads in particular to develop a full range of experience to equip them for headship. It is apparent that on appointment, many heads consider they were lacking in practical experience of some key areas of headship such as budget management - indeed, many still identify a need for further training in this regard. 

2.88      The main strategy that many people had felt constrained to adopt in the face of the levels of available support was that of working long hours in the evenings, weekends and outside term time.

2.89      The recent emphasis on minimising meeting times has been largely welcomed in principle but, whilst endorsing this, many managers and staff simultaneously report something of a loss of empowerment in being able to address the longer term strategic issues - including structural issues such as workload and whole school responses. Discussions within schools about this seem to be substantially under-developed.

2.90      Although a variety of practice clearly exists, available meeting time seems often to be consumed by urgent operational imperatives. With regard to this, many staff are questioning the best use of available meeting time  and seeking to identify those issues that are better dealt with through other communication methods.  

2.91      Many heads were broadly aware of the advisory circulars on reducing burdens but had not felt able to pursue these issues themselves or with senior colleagues (e.g. exploring the web-site and associated tool kit for use within school) and this too is evidence of the current paradox. People feel that time is at such a premium (and they are unsure of the potential benefits to be gained) that they are unwilling to stop and devote precious time to examining the larger picture and their possible structural responses to it.

2.92      We encountered schools who had developed some imaginative and sophisticated responses to the issue of support to school managers. The main strategies centred on specialist staff taking on a range of school management duties. Key responses being adopted or identified included:

·                 Senior Management Teams of suitable size and capacity and sufficient non-teaching time for headteachers and Ssenior teaching colleagues

·                 Business Manager/Finance/Bursar support

·                 Site and facilities management

·                 More - and higher skilled - administrative support, including personal support for the head and senior managers

·                 Administrative and professional staff able to co-ordinate work for attendance, examinations and to support governors 

·                 Administrative and professional staff to liaise with students, parents, and other agencies in a way that lifts the day to day burden from the head and senior colleagues.

Activity 5: General Administration

2.93      This includes any administration not directly associated with other identified activity groups.  This means general record keeping, organising resources, photocopying and filing, and other kinds of administration.  Primary heads spend longer on this than secondary heads, but the pattern is reversed for classroom teachers, albeit by a small amount.  The OME figures are shown below.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

4.8

3.4

3.0

2.0

Primary

6.2

1.8

-

1.6

Special

-

-

-

2.3

 

2.94      General Administration was the most “excessive” task identified by teachers, and in particular by secondary school teachers.  Although the overall amounts of time devoted to these activities could be said to be relatively low, we were in fact struck by how much of this is done by heads, managers and class teachers.  For many heads, for example, the total time devoted to this over a year would amount, in total, to the equivalent of five or six weeks' work. For other staff too, this represents a significant brake on individual and team working which the different potential solutions we put forward are designed to remove.

2.95      Headteachers and teachers frequently cited these activities as unnecessary and contributing to excessive workloads: referring specifically to photocopying, collecting money, routine administration for examinations, form filling, filing, collating, and resource organisation.  We also frequently observed examples of teachers carrying out straightforward but time consuming clerical procedures because they were unable to identify sources of assistance. 

2.96      There is generally insufficient clerical or administrative support to relieve headteachers and teachers of these tasks, and few schools had been able to organise a reasonable resource base for these activities.  Some schools had made specific provision for reprographic support but there were still issues of timing and responsiveness. In order to make use of the service, teachers were required to give an element of advance notice which many were unable to provide, given that they felt constrained to carry out the work during the evenings and weekends for the next working day. We found it common for teachers to be in school from early morning carrying out photocopying - often from 7 a.m. or 8 am - but the more common starting time for (those few) designated reprographics staff  was nearer to 9 a.m.  One teacher commented:

"I have to do some photocopying each day. At peak periods (before and after the teaching day, breaks, lunch), there is usually a queue at the one fast machine. I'm lucky because my room is next door so if there's a long queue, I come back later. Even so, I spend at least ten minutes a day at the copier, say 90 minutes in all allowing for big tasks and queuing, and staff from other buildings spend longer than me because they can't dodge the queues."

2.97      This kind of photocopying is often sometimes done to provide student learning material in place of text books at no additional "cost" - counting the teacher's work here as a zero marginal cost activity. It can however, represent a far greater expense when the real cost of the teacher time is taken into account. We estimate that this kind of activity in a large school can represent salary costs in the region of £70,000 a year, and adding in the real costs of the time spent on other aspects of general administration brings a higher sum.

2.98      We noted that teachers believed that nearly all the information recorded in schools needs at some point to be seen by others, within the school or outside.  This 'secondary' use of data - whether text or numbers such as marks - could be facilitated by better ICT and appropriately trained support staff. The lack of ready access by teachers to computing facilities is a significant finding of this Study: indeed, we consider that there are few, if any, major groups of professional workers in Britain who have as little ready access to PC/networked facilities/and email.

2.99      Some of this administrative work has its origins in decisions on policy and practice taken by the school itself - albeit in consideration of the limited resources available to them. Examples might be the manual collation by a form tutor of hand written reports prepared by other subject colleagues; and the clerical and administrative work surrounding resource organisation for a subject or Key Stage leader or departmental head, because they have no individual, group, or departmental allocation of clerical support.


Activity 6: Individual/ Professional activity

2.100  This includes training and being trained, and background study.  The amount of time spent on this tends to increase with increasing levels of responsibility.  This activity received the largest response (23%) to the question, “what would teachers like time to do more of?”.  The weekly hours spent on this activity as identified by the OME diary study are in the table below.

 

Headteacher

Deputy head

Head of department

Classroom teacher

Secondary

6.1

4.7

3.7

2.8

Primary

6.3

4.9

-

3.3

Special

-

-

-

3.5

 

Training other staff

2.101  This includes training teachers, students and support staff.  Most teachers reported that there was very little time to train other staff.  Where teachers provided training for colleagues, it usually occurred after school. This placed an added workload burden on the teacher trainers who often prepared INSET sessions in their own time.

2.102  Many support staff reported that they 'learnt on the job' and would appreciate more time to meet with and learn from teaching colleagues and also attend training courses.

2.103  Some teachers were very positive about having student teachers, welcomed the opportunity to have  'energetic and enthusiastic trainees' and reported that the standard of trainees was very high. Training and supporting student teachers often added to teachers' workloads.  There were reports of an NQT having four student teachers in one year and another where a student teacher's tutor arrived not knowing the student.  These examples, whilst rare, indicated that the overall management and documentation associated with supervising students added workload pressures. 

Being trained/ appraised

2.104  This includes attending external and internal training courses, INSET.  In our fieldwork we noted the following:

·                 Teachers as part of their performance management plan do not usually plan continuing professional development (CPD), nor is it a major consideration when structuring the timetable. The head teacher rather than teachers frequently decides CPD for teachers and many teachers reported that courses were offered on an ad hoc (and sometimes preferential) basis. Some teachers could not explain the basis on which professional development was offered - that is, these schools did not have strategic, transparent systems for planning and providing professional development

·                 There are few opportunities for in-school or between-school sharing/professional development.  Teachers in smaller schools noted that they felt particularly isolated because of the limited contact they have with colleagues teaching the same subjects/year group.  Many teachers reported that they would welcome the opportunity to meet, plan with, and observe colleagues (and be observed) in their own school or in neighbouring schools as part of their professional development and appraisal

·                 Some NQTs reported that they did not have the statutory recommended 10% non-contact time, therefore it was very difficult to reflect on their practice, meet to discuss their performance or observe more experienced colleagues teaching.  NQTs who participated in LEA courses found these very valuable, but stressed the need to have time to plan and reflect on these in their own school setting

·                 CPD offered during normal teaching times is disruptive to schools because supply teachers are required to cover for classes.  Some head teachers suggested that where possible, courses should be offered outside school hours to ensure continuity of teaching and learning – we note that DfES has also suggested this to schools

·                 There is an added workload issue for teachers who attend courses because they must plan and prepare lessons for cover/supply teachers

·                 Twilight sessions were often held, however teachers reported that these were sometimes of limited value because teachers were tired at the end of a teaching day

·                 There was very little positive feedback about the NOF.  ICT training programme for teachers.  ICT training in general was identified as a key area of need for teachers, however but there was agreement that courses needed to be sufficiently flexible to meet individuals' skills levels and teachers needed time to use and practise skills.

2.105  Teachers reported that training was an important part of their professional development.  Curricular changes, improvements in technology and the desire for an increasingly evidence based and reflective profession, with greater levels of performance and accountability, all require new knowledge and skills.  Training needs to be well planned and supported and teachers need time to use and practise new skills.

Study

2.106  This describes professional related study and background reading, except where it is preparation for a particular class.  Our fieldwork indicates that teachers have very little time to pursue part-time extended courses such as first or higher degrees or professional qualifications. Headteachers and teachers with management responsibilities reported that they felt under pressure to keep up with professional reading, particularly in respect to changing curricular, government and LEA policies and initiatives. These activities were frequently undertaken during holiday periods when they had space for this activity.

2.107  Many teachers reported that reading was undertaken in their own time, often during the holidays or at weekends.  Some teachers reported regularly reading around their subject through subscriptions to journals and magazines and favourite web-sites or features in the TES.  However, time was limited and the activity was often described as 'flicking through' the relevant journal/paper. Time was always an issue and teachers consistently said 'I'd like to do more reading or study but I just don't have the time to fit it in'.

Other individual/ professional activity

2.108  These include accessing the Internet for teaching resources and ideas and reviewing teaching resources and venues for visits/trips.

2.109  Reviewing resources often occurred during holiday times and many teachers reported that they 'always have an eye out for new resources' when they visit book- shops or places of interest.  A number of teachers suggested they would use the Internet for accessing resources and ideas from home if they did not have to pay for Internet connections and phone calls associated with these tasks.

2.110  Many teachers said that reviewing ICT packages that were relevant to their subject required enormous amounts of time.  In order for ICT packages to be used confidently in lessons teachers need to be familiar with how they worked and how they linked to teaching objectives.  There is no doubt that many teachers regularly review resources in both print and electronic media.  These activities often spill over into holidays and weekends.

Wider issues

2.111  There are some issues that need to be considered from a wider perspective than the activity-led one above, and this section has been included for that reason.

2.112  It has been put to us in the course of the study that there are some fundamental reasons behind existing working practices, relating to the balance of accountability, trust and ownership, and that a shift is needed in favour of the school if more effective practices are to be established in the long-term.  For example:

·                 The “high stakes” nature of infrequent publicly reported inspections was felt to be behind the tendency for some schools to over-plan and to keep extensive written documentation of their work, not only in the run-up to the inspection, but as a matter of course so that evidence was available if needed.

·                 Schools perceived a need for better co-ordination of the work of DfES, OFSTED, the different agencies and other government departments in terms of their impact on schools

2.113  We were also told frequently about ‘initiative fatigue’ in schools, in terms of the volume of initiatives, and also the way in which they were introduced, with a perception that lead-in times were too short and the impact on teacher time not sufficiently considered. 


3.           Implications for resources and implementation

3.1          Options for providing solutions to the issues set out in Section 2 are likely to be found by examining the potential use of a range of resources, either individually or, more often, in different combinations.  We believe the key resources are best grouped under the following headings:

·                 Role of school management and governance

·                 Teachers and teaching time

·                 Use of support staff

·                 Use of ICT

·                 The working environment

·                 Role of central government/ agencies/ LEAs/ OFSTED.

3.2          Under each of these headings we explore how potential solutions might be found by better deployment of that particular resource.

Role of school management and governance

3.3          School practice and policies and the financial decisions made annually by the governing body on the advice of senior managers have a direct impact on virtually every aspect of  a teacher’s workload.  School management and governing bodies have to work within the constraints of the law (including on conditions of service), the policies and directives of the Government and its various agencies (including on conditions of service) and must manage within a budget limit which is invariably less than the school believes is desirable.  Within those constraints however there is considerable scope for local determination of policy across a wide range of issues – length of school day, structure of school day, non contact ratios, supply and the protection of non- contact time, the balance of teaching and the range of support and specialist staffing and the support available to teachers, reporting to parents, assessment, homework, marking, pastoral systems, self- evaluation and review – all of which have significant workload implications.

3.4          The potential for managing workload at local (i.e. school) level is therefore considerable, as is the danger that workload is not adequately considered when local policies in these areas are considered and developed.  On the basis of our fieldwork we believe that, while headteachers are very concerned about workload, school management and governance at individual school level currently lacks a holistic approach to workload management. Decisions about issues which have an impact on workload are likely to be taken in isolation from each other and from any whole school policy on workload.  In addition,  and the number of schools that have systematically reviewed ways of relieving teachers of unnecessary or over-burdensome tasks is very small.

3.5           As has been suggested above, effective management of workload in schools must start with acceptance by headteachers that the individual and collective workloads of staff are among their key responsibilities.  It is important to emphasise that this goes beyond the school timetable and the other aspects of Directed Time.  It must include all aspects of a teacher’s working week and year including the extent of work undertaken during school holidays.

3.6          The achievement of significant changes to the current teacher workload, within the English and Welsh system of locally managed schools, will rest largely with school management and governance, whatever other levers may be used to support these changes unless enforced by contractual changes.  Headteachers and governors will need both advice and resources to implement change but the key to success will be the extent to which they accept that advice and the effectiveness with which they apply those resources.

3.7          Phase Two of the project will provide an opportunity to discuss with headteachers both the principle of responsibility for workload management, their requirements for advice in this area and the nature and method of delivery of the additional resources which they believe might be necessary to deliver change in current workload levels.

3.8          In addition we have considered the workloads of headteachers themselves.  Just as headteachers should, we believe, become increasingly responsible for workload of their staff, so we believe the governing body needs an overarching responsibility for ensuring the headteachers workload is manageable.  In practice this implies greater consideration of the support needs of headteachers and senior managers when budgetary decisions are taken over, for example, the level and quantum of strategic, financial and other high level support.

Teachers and teaching time

3.9          The changes to the nature of the profession, towards greater accountability and higher expectations from parents and government imply a need for greater opportunity for professional development and reflection, and a need for higher quality tools and resources to support teachers’ work, potentially including ICT and other staff support.  It also implies that teachers need greater time to manage their own work, and the range of resources available, in order to make the most effective use of them

3.10      Teachers need the skills to make the most of this time and other resource.  We found only 13% of teachers rated themselves as expert users of ICT and 20% as expert in use of data and analytical skills.  However, they tended to rate themselves more highly in terms of time management, where 35% believed they were expert.  Our own observations support the view that teachers are in general good at time management and, where they can access it and are familiar with it, are good users of ICT.  However, they are not always as disciplined as they might be in terms of their own and their colleagues’ work.  Intrusions from colleagues, followed by intrusions from pupils, accounted for 50% and 40% of the disruptions to planned work being carried out in the observations we undertook.  Other important barriers and disruptions were lack of work space (32%), noise levels (23%) and lack of ICT (20%).

3.11      There is a particular challenge in terms of how to ensure any proposed changes actually help the teaching profession, particularly where good practice approaches are thought to be the best way forward.  Awareness amongst teachers of the previous “Cutting Burdens” circular and associated web-site and tool-kit was low (around 30% and 10% respectively).  Perhaps more worryingly, 60% of those that were aware of the tool-kit felt it had made no difference to them or their school.  This contrasts very strongly with schools that we worked alongside in Reducing Bureaucratic Burdens projects that actually used the tool-kit, where we found the great majority have reported that they achieved their objectives, improved efficiency and believed there were lasting benefits to the way the school carried out its work.  Annex D contains more details of the experiences of these schools.

3.12      This indicates the need for any good practice strategies to be routed through channels of communication that impact on teachers’ work.  We found that the most important of these routes for most teachers was the views of other teachers (about 80% of respondents rated the views of other staff as having “high impact”), followed by guidance and briefing from the headteacher (around 60%).  Memos and notices at school, and information given on training courses, were also rated quite highly (both at 40%).  However, web-site information (17%), and DfES Teacher Magazine (6%)publications, had a much lower rating (17% and 6% respectively) had a much lower rating.  This is clearly important information in considering how to implement any  the proposals that are developed in Phase Two.

Use of support staff

In class support - Classroom Support Assistants (CSAs) and Technicians

3.13      DfES has provided additional resources for support staff in schools, and their figures show that since 1998 schools have employed 44,000 more support staff.  In addition, the Government is committed to ensuring that schools have a further 20,000 support staff. Based on the information obtained in Phase One of the Workload Study, we believe that we need to examine further the roles of CSAs and technicians, and the management of and training available to them.

3.14      Nevertheless, in our fieldwork We we have identified a wide range of tasks including ordering, receipting, preparing and maintaining teaching materials and resources, photocopying, counting money, mounting and removing displays, cleaning and tidying classrooms, filing and data entry that could all be undertaken by support staff. In secondary schools there are traditional arrangements for support in subjects such as science and food/materials technology, however we observed inconsistencies in the level of support to teachers of these subjects. Many science teachers were still cleaning up classrooms after laboratory sessions because science technicians were only responsible for preparing equipment.  In one secondary school a materials technology teacher had no support and prepared all materials (wood, plastics etc) himself.

3.15      Based on the information obtained in Phase One of the Workload Study, we believe that there is scope in Phase Two to examine further the roles of CSAs and technicians, and the management of and training available to them. We need in particular to examine the sufficiency of ICT technician support in all phases.

Learning Support Assistants /Special Needs Assistants

3.16      Many teachers we spoke to suggested that additional support from LSAs/SNAs was needed, and teachers and LSAs suggested that more time for planning and meeting would improve the effectiveness of LSAs.  There is scope to We need to consider the implications of this in Phase Two

Support from Parents and Community Members

3.17      Some schools suggested that additional support could be provided from parents and community members. Primary teachers, particularly at Foundation and KS1 levels suggested that parents could assist with a range of tasks such as preparing and managing resources, classroom displays, preparing food/milk and in some cases, listening to pupils read. As noted earlier in our report many primary teachers feel that this type of basic level support has been reduced by the development of the former role of ancillary helpers/classroom assistants into that of teacher assistants supporting teaching/learning.  In Phase Two of the Workload Study there is scope for highlighting best practice in this area.  There is also scope for investigating international programmes that currently encourage older students and adults to work in schools, particularly with disaffected adolescents.

High level support to headteachers and SMT 

3.18      We identified the following potential support needs for headteachers and the Senior Management Team:

·                 Personal Assistants – Headteachers who already have personal assistants indicated that they confidently passed a wide range of tasks including the management of their diaries, opening, sorting and prioritising the post, interfacing with the public and staff and dealing with correspondence on their behalf.  There is scope in We need to consider in Phase Two to consider the extent of support that headteachers need from secretaries or personal assistants, theirre competencies in terms of ICT and other skills, and how this need changes for schools of different size 

·                 Managers who were trained in financial and strategic management were present in some schools we visited (but not necessarily for 100% of the time in smaller ones).  They undertook tasks associated with financial management, supervision and maintenance of buildings and the (joint) line management of caretakers, cleaners, dinner-providers, gardeners and other support staff. The term Bursar is often used in this context – some argue that this is title carries overtones which are too narrowly drawn for the role which is required and prefer the title Business Manager.  There is scope to We need to consider potential future needs for this type of support in Phase Two

·                 Some headteachers of larger secondary schools identified support from Human Resource Professionals as a requirement.  Although the workload associated with recruitment is often cyclical, it is a significant contributor to workload for teaching and the range of support staff.  Headteachers suggested that HR professionals could also assist with performance management and the strategic management of professional development.

Clerical / school office support to teachers

3.19      Most teachers within Phase One of the Workload Study have identified a range of tasks that could be undertaken by clerical/school office support staff.  These include word-processing letters and lesson materials, taking minutes, organising trips and visits, contacting parents, entering data and ordering resources. Our work on the Reducing Bureaucratic Burdens on Teachers projects suggests that the list of tasks that can be successfully delegated is extensive. Secondary teachers in particular have suggested that entitlement to clerical assistance needs to be linked directly to departments/faculties and to year head duties.

3.20      Support Staff interviewed in Phase One of the Workload Study suggested that in some schools there would need to be a culture change to encourage teachers to plan in advance in order to optimise support from additional clerical staff. This suggests that some teachers may benefit from having the time during the week, and for some, management training, to allow them to make the best use of available support. Support staff also suggested that they themselves needed training, particularly in ICT. 

Support from other specialists - ICT technicians

3.21      Most schools identified a major gap in technical support for ICT.  One of the critical issues was the ability for schools to attract and retain suitably qualified people given current market rates and shortages in the ICT area.  For secondary schools and primary schools with large numbers of computers, maintaining large networks, providing immediate and effective 'help-desk' support, ensuring site licenses are in order and reviewing and updating software often fell to the computing/technology co-ordinator.  This role was often balanced against a standard teaching load, which meant that systems were often 'down' or printers or electronic whiteboards unusable simply because there was no immediate help or training available.

Support from other professionals

3.22      A number of schools in the our study reported that perceived increased difficulty of pupils beheaviour highlighted the difficulties in securing support within schools from other  professionals including educational psychologists, social workers, health workers and associated professionals.  This placed increasing workload on teachers who felt they had neither the skills nor the time to deal with pupils with specialist needs.  Some teachers said they required specialist support to deal with pupils with emotional and behavioural problems, many of which problems they believed to be at the heart of a pupil's inability to learn effectively and poor behaviour.  The lack of access to high quality support from professionals such as clinical and educational psychologists and social workers was perceived to contribute to teachers' stress and low morale.  Some suggested that it may also be a contributing factor in the number of pupil exclusions.

Development of Information Communications Technology (ICT)

3.23      Before summarising what we believe our own findings suggest in terms of current and potential future ICT in schools it is helpful to reflect on the considerable amount of work already in train. 

3.24      Present developments across the board stem mainly from the Government's announcement in 1997 to encourage the widespread application of information communication technology in teaching and learning in maintained schools.  The main intentions were to equip schools with modern facilities; create a National Grid for Learning (NGfL) with educational information and study material; and organise a programme of in-service training for teachers and school librarians to enable them to make effective use of ICT in their professional work. Key targets for 2002 included:

·                 All schools, colleges, public libraries and as many community centres as possible being connected to the NGfL

·                 Britain to become a centre of excellence in the development of software content, and a world leader in the export of learning services

·                 Serving teachers to feel confident, and to be competent, to teach using ICT within the curriculum

·                 School leavers to have a good understanding of ICT, with measures in place for assessing their competence.

3.25      The then DfEE funding for the ICT infrastructure and generic training amounted to £657 million over four years beginning in April 1998 - distributed through the Standards Fund. Early arrangements included bidding, LEA matched funding and support, where possible, from commercial partners. Allocations from April 2000 were made on a formula basis, and some LEAs were identified as  'pathfinders' to explore the value of particular patterns of networked provision or other facilities with additional facilitating funding.

3.26      In addition, from April 1999, £230 million of Lottery funds were made available from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) - a non-departmental public body - to help increase the competence of all teachers in their use of ICT in teaching and learning. This scheme would use training organisations, approved by NOF and quality assured by the Teacher Training Agency (TTA).

3.27      Other significant funding arrangements included:

·                 The distribution of laptops to headteachers and consultants working in the National Numeracy and Literacy Strategies

·                 A pilot project for training and software in computer aided design and technology - ultimately extended to 3,400 teachers in 2,001 schools

·                 Specific DfEE grants to various development agencies and software authors to support the creation of digital resources

·                 Computers for Teachers - funding to subsidise teachers' purchase of computers. The Government announced an extension in March 2001 of an additional £50 million for future phases of this scheme over the next three years. This is intended to enable a further 70,000 subsidised computer purchases. Consultation ended in June 2001 as to the best operational deployment for the next phases, and specifically how to target particular phases or subject groups.

3.28      The DfEE also developed an Information Management Strategy for Schools and LEAs. The vision behind this strategy is that essential management information will be routinely held, shared, and used electronically by all schools to underpin high quality leadership and learning. Electronic management information will be part of day to day school business, and will help to raise educational standards.

3.29      The aim is to contribute to raising standards by making significant and tangible improvements in the way that information about pupils and maintained schools in England is defined, collected, analysed, shared and used. The strategy stems from:

·                 Taking forward work to optimise teaching time in schools, and to streamline managerial and administrative requirements, especially data collection and handling

·                 An NGfL objective that by 2002, general administrative communications between education bodies and Government agencies cease to be largely paper based

·                 The wishes of Ministers and DfES managers to improve the management and utility of data flowing to and from and between school, LEAs and central government.

3.30      Success by March 2002 will be measured in terms of indirect impact on raising the standards attained by pupils and improving management in schools by:

·                 Minimising administrative effort through streamlining and automation

·                 Removing resource consuming distractions

·                 Contributing to every school having an effective information management system.

3.31      The Standards Fund Circular 2001 - 2002 has also introduced a new baseline for ICT in schools:

"The Secretary of State attaches importance to the early achievement of a 'baseline' or minimum threshold of access to ICT in every school … Commitment by LEAs to achievement of the baseline in all schools by 31 August 2002 will be a condition of grant for NGfL allocations in 2001-2002. The Secretary of State also intends schools and LEAs to support investment and implementation beyond the baseline level."

3.32      The baseline is defined as:

·                 A computer: pupil ratio of at least 1:11 in each primary school and 1:7 in each secondary school

·                 A connection to the Internet in each school, with at least 20% of schools connected at broadband level

·                 At least one networked computer with Internet access in each school for management and administrative purposes.

3.33      With regard to progress in training, commented on by so many teachers in our own study, OFSTED noted in their April 2001 Report on ICT in Schools, that no consistent national assessment of teachers' professional ICT requirements was undertaken in relation to the expected outcomes for the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) Training. Successful training has taken place where preparation has been good, but generally, teachers' needs with regard to the pedagogical use of ICT in their subject or phase were not ascertained effectively in advance by schools or approved training providers and the needs analysis materials provided by the TTA were used infrequently. 

3.34      This analysis does seem to be in line with the comments we encountered from teachers recalling their training experiences under this scheme.

3.35      There is little doubt that all these initiatives have raised the profile of ICT considerably and developed, in many areas, the beginnings of an infrastructure that will help to underpin the aim of allowing serving teachers to feel confident, and to be competent, to teach using ICT within the curriculum and for staff to be relieved of some of the time consuming burdens of data management.

3.36      Despite this, however, there remains a gap between the kind of provision being established - and its pace of development - and the provision we have identified in practice in many schools.  We outline below the implications for potential ICT-based developments.

3.37      Improving access to school networks, lap-tops and other ICT. Teachers and headteachers we spoke to described the following needs:

·                 Improved access to high quality provision of PCs and associated kit in school, and to a school network to facilitate efficient and effective planning, communications, departmental and school email, and easy access to educational web sites

·                 Improved access to the same network from home based kit – in a few schools there were facilities for using laptops on loan, evidence of individually purchased PCs using the Computers for Teachers subsidies, and we heard views on the benefits of teachers’ own home PCs being linked to school networks

·                 Access to a resource base in school or nearby, for professional planning and access to resource preparation facilities

·                 The associated development of librarian/resource/researcher staff to support staff and students in their research

·                 Improved access to electronic whiteboard technology to capitalise on the advantages identified by existing users and OFSTED[10] with regard to:

-             effective whole class teaching

-             making teachers' presentations clearer and more interesting and providing instant notes via print-outs of the text and examples used in presentations.  OFSTED has found this benefits all pupils, especially those with special educational needs

·                 Other developments to facilitate video links within school and with other schools and to support co-operative and distance learning.

3.38      Development of a database of good practice web sites. There is much good practice available, but teachers said that access to it could be simplified and that much time they currently felt was wasted in browsing could be saved. 

3.39      Development of appropriate technical support. As discussed above, teachers and headteachers said there was a lack of technical support in schools, which we saw resulted in some teachers, headteachers and deputy heads spending time resolving technical IT issues that could be better handled by a specialist.

3.40      Improving the systems for exchange and analysis of pupil data.  The approach of the IMS strategy to managing and exchanging pupil data is, broadly, to specify the content of pupil data through the Common Basic Data Set, and to specify the language (called XML). However, we saw much energy and resource being diverted into different home-grown pupil data management software packages, and some headteachers suggested that a more direct national strategy was needed.

The working environment

3.41      By the working environment, we mean opportunities for flexible off-site working, as well the environment within the school itself.

3.42      The most common issue teachers raised was that of the quality of work spaces provided for them, which they perceived to be poor.  When asked to comment on limitations to working, and in particular to flexible working, over half of teacher responses focused on lack of availability of space and facilities.  80% of headteachers that responded to the relevant question said that lack of available space was the main barrier to effective use of in-school non-contact time.

3.43      In our observations we found that in most cases teachers had no office, and limited or no access to the telephone network. Many teachers had no access to the school ICT network except through a computer shared with pupils in the classroom, and most teachers were not able to access the network remotely. Observations carried out during teachers’ non-contact time noted that many teachers had nowhere to work where they were free from distraction or interruption, and that this trend was part of the explanation for the increased amount of work carried out at home during the week or at weekends.

3.44      It was commented upon by many of the researchers that the facilities that they saw were available to teachers were poorer than those they believed would be provided to equivalent professional staff in other sectors. We have not however carried out a statistical benchmark comparison so this is impressionistic rather than factual.  In some cases researchers were concerned about the health and safety implications of the conditions in which teachers were working, where light was limited, furniture was inappropriately sized and in one extreme example, insufficiently converted from previous use as a toilet.

3.45      We also note in this context that DfES has provided figures to show that capital investment has risen from £683 million in 1996-97 to £2.2 billion in 2001-02. These observations need to be set in the context of increased capital investment in schools, which DfES figures shows rising from £683 million in 1996-97 to £2.2 billion in 2001-02.

 

3.46      Other environmental considerations include the creation of more flexible teaching spaces which could be adapted to allow for smaller or larger teaching groups through the use of dividers or screens, and easier access for teaching staff to administrative support, either through physical proximity or electronic communication. More generally, several of the researchers commented on the run-down state of some of the school premises visited and the implication this had for how valued teachers and pupils might feel.

 

3.47      We therefore believe from our research in schools that the nature of the working environment has implications for the effective use of teachers’ time and, more widely, for the effective use of school resources in general, and there is scope to will explore this further in Phase Two.

Role of central government/ agencies/ LEAs/ OFSTED

3.48      Our research points to various areas of responsibility undertaken by central government/agencies/LEAs and OFSTED which headteachers and teachers perceive have had a significant impact on workload.  These include:

·                 The pace and in some cases manner of implementation of new initiatives

·                 Pressures from increased accountability (for which OFSTED and performance tables usually stands as a proxy in teachers’ and headteachers’ descriptions)

·                 The perceptions of an increased ‘bidding’ culture

·                 The perceptions of an increased ‘documentation’ culture, where they feel that accountability must be met through the written word rather than professional assertion.

3.49      There is scope to explore these issues In our view, these issues merit further exploration in Phase Two and, if it is identified that changes are needed, some of these may will need to be made at national and local government level, as well as rather than by individual schools.

In addition, central government has a key role in ensuring that a mechanism is found to create any changes that Phase Two of our work identifies as being best made at the local school level, and for identifying resources – where needed - to allow this to happen.  A Seminar in September will be a key opportunity for a variety of organisations to discuss our potential solutions and whether, and how, they can be taken forward.


4.           Proposed workplan for Phase Two

11.          In Phase Two we will identify and appraise options for providing solutions.  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.


4.1          The main tasks we will undertake to do this are shown in the table below.

Step/ indicative timing

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Discuss Interim report with Steering Group

 

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

Seminar with other agencies

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

 

Written evidence to STRB (DfES task)

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

 

Phase Two evidence gathering and diagnostics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oral evidence to STRB (DfES task)

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

Develop draft action plan and report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality Assure plan and report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Produce final action plan and report (by 29 November)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



4.2          The main difference in terms of our methodology is that we will move from collecting evidence about current practice, to testing out and developing solutions.  In some cases this will mean visiting schools that we know have particular practice that could be shared.  In general much less of our time will be spent on general interviewing, and much more on in-depth discussions, wider research and options appraisal and development.  The main elements of our Phase Two approach are shown in the following table.


 

Evidence gap

Evidence collection methodology

Views of different categories of support staff on issues and solutions

New questionnaires for range of support staff: bursars, technicians, classroom support, learning support, SNAs, Learning Mentors.

Differentiated approaches to different schools to see and test out particular issues.

Teacher and headteacher views on range of solutions, potential advantages and disadvantages of different routes.

Further examples of existing good practice that solve the issues we have identified.

In-depth understanding of the likely impact of different communication routes.

Further fieldwork in schools.

Testing out new approaches through discussion and challenge.

Differentiated approaches to different schools to see and test out particular issues.

Generating new/ innovative approaches.

Focus on good practice from Phase One, other programmes including Demonstration Project, Work-life Balance Challenge Fund

Better understanding of how the work of different national agencies and government departments can help to solve the issues identified.

National sSeminar in September to discuss issues and identify how to carry forward solutions, with key national agencies.

Testing findings and proposed solutions with a range of headteachers and teachers who are coming fresh to the discussion

“Teachers’ Forum”: a representative selection of teachers and heads who will discuss the Final Draft Report with us in November

 

4.3          We will discuss this Interim Report with the Steering Group during August. We will embark on the work programme set out above from early September and will produce a costed action plan and associated final report by the end of November.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

©2001 PricewaterhouseCoopers.  PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the UK firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers and to other member firms of the worldwide PricewaterhouseCoopers organisation.  All rights reserved.



[1] Where we refer to other managers and professionals we are using the definitions of the Office of National Statistics, which are set out in Appendix Two of Annex E to this report.

[2] DfES statistics show average real terms funding per pupil rising by £540 to £3,520 between 1997-98 and 2001-02.

[3] Where we refer to other manager and professionals we are using the definitions of the Office of National Statistics, which are set out in Appendix Two of Annex E to this report.

[4] Office of Management Economics Teacher Workloads Diary Studies: March 1994, 1996 and 2000

[5]Bureaucracy Cutting Tool-kit and companion volume of good practice examples, Coopers and Lybrand for DfEE, 1999

[6] Class size data can be used to undertake this calculation, as they are an expression of pupil: teacher ratios. DfES’ data show these ratios have remained at close to  23.5 pupils per teacher in the primary sector (with a slight fall over time) and 17 per teacher in secondary (with a slight rise over time).  Pupil: teacher ratios therefore show no direct link with the changes in teacher workload.

 

[8] Source of data for other occupations: Office of National Statistics dataset RT35510.  For further details on the ONS definitions of managers, administrators and professionals please see Appendix Two to Annex E

[9] Teachers in the US recorded an average of 45 hours a week and those in Australia 49.  This is similar to ONS figures for teachers in the UK, but a little lower then OME’s and our figures.

[10] ICT IN SCHOOLS  - The impact of Government Initiatives, OFSTED Interim Report, April 2001