Teachers’ Workload Survey Prepared for TUI Prepared by Luke Reaper and Ian Mc. Shane March 2010 J. 9871 IMAGE HERE INTO GREY AREA.
Introduction 2
Research Background 1) A qualitative phase of twelve in-depth interviews structured as follows: v Three Teaching Deputy Principals and nine teachers v Mix of subjects were taught (i. e. maths, music, career guidance, science, French, metal work, woodwork, geography, Irish, Home Economics) v Split between: 1) 10 interviews with VEC and C&C schools and 2) 2 interviews in Further Education/3 rd Level Colleges v Mix of genders of respondents v Mix of urban vs rural schools l The objective of this phase was to inform the quantitative findings. TUI teachers were chosen randomly by Behaviour & Attitudes from a broader listing compiled by TUI. 3
Research Background 2) A quantitative survey of 442 second and third level teachers conducted via selfcompletion methodology. The following sampling frame was utilised. A) Firstly the full list of Post Primary schools were tagged; for VEC vs C&C and for specific programmes; LCA, LCVP, TY, JCSP and special needs. The PLC schools and Private Secondary schools were deleted from the sampling frame. The end result was our school sample frame. In addition, also included in the overall sampling frame was the full list of Institutes of Further Education and Third Level Institutes. B) This sample frame was first stratified according to the proportion of VEC, C&C schools and Institutions of Further Education and Third Level Institutes within four regions: Dublin, Rest of Leinster, Munster and Conn/Ulster. Next, specific schools in proportion to these universes were selected. Schools with special needs and minority ethnic students were included within the sampling frame. Schools with less than 10 TUI members were excluded from the sampling frame. 4
Research Background C) Every TUI member within a selected institution was given the opportunity to complete the survey. The following numbers of Educational Institutions were selected for the mail out of the questionnaire pack: v 61 VEC schools v 57 C&C Schools v 10 Further Educational Institutes v 10 Third Level Institutes l A letter from the TUI, explaining the purpose of the research, was mailed to each principal of a selected school/college. l In addition, a letter explaining the research purpose, prepaid reply envelope and questionnaire were included in each pack mailed to teachers. 5
Research Background l 442 completed TUI teacher interviews were achieved, split across the following school types: v VEC 161 v C&C 128 v Further Education 78 v Third Level 68 v Not classified l 7 The results were weighted by TUI membership of school/college type within region and position level. 6
Findings 7
Section One: Current Context 8
How VEC & C&C teacher workload has changed in the past 10 years – Top 10 spontaneous comments School/College (Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers: 291) C&C VEC 128 % 161 % 52 53 46 33 29 29 24 28 26 23 28 22 27 21 21 20 Increased demands from parents 17 18 Homework/ corrections / marking 8 9 % Increased paperwork/admin Increasing discipline problems Mixed ability classes Increased planning More preparation for classes Increased curriculum changes Meetings in general Inspections *Answers less than 9% not charted, but are contained within the table set 9
How VEC & C&C teacher workload has changed in the past 10 years – Top 10 spontaneous comments (Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers: 291) Total Region DEIS Status 2 nd Level Assessment Dublin* Outside Dublin Yes No 291 58 228 159 115 157 119 % % % % Increased paperwork – more record keeping / form filling /more reports / CAO applications / more administrative work 53 52 53 55 48 51 56 Increasing discipline problems – more time spent dealing with student behavioural issues / documenting disciplinary matters and meetings re discipline 35 42 34 40 27 36 33 Mixed ability classes – more demands on teachers due to integration of special needs pupils and minorities (non-nationals) into mainstream classes / preparing modified classes 29 52 23 30 28 34 23 Increased planning – more planning required for classes / school development planning / teachers more involved in planning school policy 27 30 27 27 31 28 26 More preparation for classes – increased project / practical work / more photocopying / need to set up and tidy up after practical work / increased pressure to complete projects within time-frame. 24 19 25 21 29 32 14 Increased curriculum changes / introduction of new subjects / increased use of technology & internet use / new methodologies / need to prepare for new programmes. 23 25 22 22 24 26 17 Meetings in general / meetings outside school hours / more staff meetings / lunchtime meetings / parent teacher meetings outside school hours 22 16 24 17 30 27 16 Inspections – more work & pressure involved in preparing for subject inspections, whole school evaluations / introduction of 2 nd assessment component in many subjects. 20 15 21 17 24 18 23 Increased demands from parents – phone calls, informal meetings / lack of cooperation from parents over discipline or homework issues. 18 11 19 14 24 20 12 Homework/ corrections / marking 9 7 9 9 10 12 5 Base (WTD) * Small base size 10
Section Two: Teacher Workload 11
Average Workload Per Week (Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers filling in the diary: 239) School/College C&C VEC 104 133 Timetable hours 18. 4 19. 4 TOTAL OUTSIDE TIMETABLE 21. 9 24. 4 Preparing for classes 4. 5 5. 6 Carrying out administrative duties 3. 9 4. 0 Correcting students work 3. 9 4. 5 Meeting students individually 2. 0 1. 7 Planning with colleagues 1. 2 1. 4 Organising extra curricular activities 1. 2 1. 5 Supporting students with special needs 1. 1 1. 2 Attending staff meetings 0. 6 0. 8 Meeting with parents 0. 7 0. 6 Participation subject evaluation work 0. 5 1. 1 Supporting students of minority groups 0. 4 0. 6 1. 8 1. 4 Other NB: Included a mix of positions On average teachers are spending 24 hours working per week outside of timetabled teaching hours. On average 19 hours of teaching time was recorded. 12
Extra curricular activities involved in (Base: VEC/C+C Teachers: 291) Age of teacher u 35 35 -44 45 -54 55+ Total 63* 56* 92 74* % % % Games 48 45 24 28 Musicals 11 15 10 7 Drama 9 14 7 6 School Trips 5 2 10 6 Debating 7 5 5 3 Fundraising Outings/Quiz 5 6 5 3 Others 32 28 29 15 No involvement 29 29 40 52 * Note: Small base Q. 3 If you are involved in extra curricular activities please indicate which, if any, of the following you are involved in? 13
Issues of most concern to teachers in terms of managing dayto-day workloads (spontaneous comments) (Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers: 291) School/College C&C VEC 128 161 % % Workload 57 53 Discipline 30 39 18 29 16 15 16 13 12 12 12 11 10 9 % Administration Spontaneous concern increases with age of teacher Homework/marking Lack of resources Practical work/projects Mixed ability classes Student Apathy *Answers less than 9% not charted, but are contained within the table set 14
Issues of most concern to teachers in terms of managing dayto-day workloads (spontaneous comments) (Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers: 291) Total Region Q 33 DEIS Status Q 8 2 nd Level Assessment Dublin* Outside Dublin Yes No 291 58 228 159 115 157 119 % % % % Workload – inability to complete all tasks within school day / increased workload and demands / no free time, short lunch breaks / too many meetings / no time for class preparation need to prioritise / bringing work home – effect on home & social life / increased pressure to meet deadlines and assessments / pressure to ensure assignments & syllabus completed on time. 53 55 53 53 53 58 45 Discipline – dealing with disruptive, aggressive students / lack of effective methods of dealing with indiscipline / stress in dealing with disruptive pupils 37 40 36 39 34 36 40 Too much time spent of administration – too much paperwork, reports, form filling, photocopying, recording incidents, writing notes to parents / lack of secretarial backup 27 54 20 32 13 31 20 Homework/marking – trying to complete homework, corrections within timeframe / correcting exam papers promptly. 15 10 17 14 17 18 12 Lack of resources – outdated, faulty equipment, lack of computers, poor broadband & it service, unclean environment/ cutbacks in teaching hours, uncertainty re teacher absences & substitutions / increasing supervision demands / not enough SNAs. 14 25 11 11 19 15 12 Practical work / projects / orals – no time for class preparation or clean up / inability to give individual attention to each student /pressure to ensure projects completed on time. 12 4 15 12 13 17 6 Mixed ability classes – dealing with special needs, non-nationals, travellers / impact on more able students / large numbers of special needs students in class 11 28 7 14 7 10 12 Difficulty of dealing with apathy / lack of motivation in students 9 10 9 11 6 6 12 Base (WTD) * Small base size 15
Opinion of workload in the last 5 years (Base: VEC/C&C Teachers: 291) In your opinion has your workload in the following areas … Decreased Remained Increased N/A Don’t know Carrying out administrative duties % 0 3 Participating in school development planning % 0 3 Addressing a wider range of student abilities in a class % 0 3 Using information technology to assist teaching % 4 2 Working outside of timetabled hours % 0 4 Dealing with class discipline/conflict % 0 2 Participating in subject inspection % 0 5 Supporting/working with special needs assistants % 6 4 Participating in whole school evaluation % 0 9 Supporting special needs students % 4 4 Dealing with other student behavioural issues (e. g. % pregnancies, drugs/crime, bullying) 4 4 the same 16
Opinion of workload in the last 5 years (Base: VEC/C&C Teachers: 291) In your opinion has your workload in the following areas … Decreased Remained the same Increased N/A Don’t know 0 1 12 9 Preparing for classes % 0 3 Dealing with parental demands % 0 4 15 8 Dealing with growing student numbers in class % 0 5 Correcting student work % 0 5 Meeting /supporting parents of special needs students % 17 5 Supporting minority students b) Travellers % 19 13 Meeting/supporting parents of minority students % 22 7 Conducting project work/field work b) other than that % associated with state examinations 13 25 Meeting students individually % Supporting minority students a) those from migrant % background Conducting project work/field work a) associated with % state examinations 17
Top Teacher Duties in terms of workload (Base: VEC/C+C Teachers filling in the question : 264) Any mention in top ten Working outside of timetabled hours % % Mentioned 1 st 2 nd 3 rd Other ranking (4 -10) Not rated in top 10 83 17 Dealing with class discipline/conflict % 82 18 Preparing for classes % 73 27 Carrying out administrative duties % 72 28 Addressing a wider range of student abilities in a class % 69 31 63 37 Correcting student work % Supporting special needs students % Participating in school development planning % Meeting students individually % 42 58 48 52 47 53 Dealing with other student behavioural issues (e. g. pregnancies, drugs/crime, bullying) % 47 53 Conducting project work/field work a) associated % with state examinations 40 Using information technology to % assist teaching 40 60 60 % ranked on any mention in top 10 duties 18
Top Teacher Duties in terms of workload (Base: VEC/C+C Teachers filling in the question : 264) Any mention in top ten Participating in subject inspection % 1 st 2 nd 3 rd Others % Not rated in top 10 60 40 61 Participating in whole school evaluation % 39 Dealing with parental demands % 29 Dealing with growing student numbers in % class 25 65 Supporting minority students a) those from % migrant background 23 77 Supporting minority students b) Travellers % 21 Supporting/working with special needs assistants % 20 80 Meeting/supporting parents of minority % students 12 88 Conducting project work/field work b) other % than that associated with state examinations 11 89 Meeting /supporting parents of special needs % students 11 89 71 79 % ranked on any mention in top 10 duties 19
Prompted assessment of specific workload factors : Summary Extend workloads has increased due to following elements (Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291) *Demands of second assessment components Working with special needs students % % Using technology to assist teaching increases workload preparation time % Presence of minority students in classes % Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Don’t know * Note: Based on all involved in second assessment components 20
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics l Across-the-board agreement that teachers’ workload has increased dramatically over the last ten years or so. l A key dichotomy in this regard is the split between C&C and VEC teachers on the one hand, and Further Education and Third Level on the other. FURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL l A whole range of factors, many of them by definition interrelated, are perceived to have combined to render these teachers’ workloads significantly more onerous in recent years. l In no particular order, these factors included: l A massive increase in the proportion of Second Level/Secondary School students progressing to higher education, from circa 15% (‘The Best and Brightest’) around ten years ago to 60% + now. This shift to ‘Universal Third Level’ education, while welcome, has had a number of knock-on effects. 21
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics FURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL v Firstly, an increase in the number of pupils with a range of learning skills and abilities. On the basis that teachers of higher level students are themselves responsible for assessing their own students (unlike Second or Secondary level teachers), the increase in the number of mixed ability students has increased the amount of time spent assessing the students’ work per se. v As a result, there has also been an increase in the amount of time spent by teachers’ on the continuous assessment of students throughout the academic year. v Teachers can also talk of the need to spend time and energy rendering course content more engaging and accessible for lower ability students. v Secondly, the increase in pupil numbers has inevitably lead to an increase in class sizes, with added pressures on a teacher’s time if he/she is to grant each student the amount of attention he/she requires. v It was mentioned within this context that the lifting of class size restrictions in 1998 has lead to a situation whereby class sizes can range from as low as five students, to 200+. 22
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics FURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL l Migration to new technologies, software systems etc. While it is acknowledged that new software packages and computer systems are vital in today’s fast-moving technological environment, there is a strong sense in which training in the use of such systems is inadequate, placing further pressure on teachers to find the time to familiarise themselves with their modus operandi. l While training is generally arranged by the organisation, it may be announced at quite short notice, and even then at a time of the day or week which may not necessarily suit the teacher in question. l There was also criticism of the tendency for the Institute’s authorities to impose the introduction of new technologies (one example cited being an operational system switched from a Web CT to a Blackboard system) with little or no consultation. The suggestion being that a consultative approach to the introduction of new systems would produce a more streamlined (and time-efficient!) implementation process. 23
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics FURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL l On a related issue, some pointed out that the introduction of new systems had in itself increased the amount of work they were required to do (e. g. entering information/data on an ongoing basis) – the type of administrative tasks secretarial staff might traditionally have been expected to fulfil. l One respondent spoke of the impact on his general workload of the (relatively recent) introduction of new modes of course delivery. Specifically, the division of the academic year into two Semesters, and the compartmentalisation of course work into a smaller number of distinct modules was reported to have taken quite an amount of time to administer. l The amount of time spent by teachers developing new courses is also perceived to have increased exponentially in recent years. For example, one of the third level teachers explained how, in the past, a course was sent to the NCEA for approval. Now, the Institute must design its own course content (whether a development of an existing course or the introduction of an entirely new one), which in turn needs to be externally validated. This process is reported to generate a considerable amount of administrative work. 24
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics FURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL l An increase in the number of Committees/Sub-Committees upon which teachers often feel obliged to serve was also reported. While the work involved in contributing to an individual committee (e. g. computer usage policy) may not in itself be overlyonerous, combined with a range of other tasks and factors (as discussed), the working week of the average Further Education/Third Level teacher can be closer to 40 than 16 hours! l In addition to the whole range of workload related factors which can affect all such teachers (albeit to varying degrees), there were quite a few examples of teachers who had assumed additional responsibilities, the fulfilment of which often necessitated a considerable number of working hours, which it is felt are by no means appreciated by management or even peers. l Examples of such additional responsibilities (for which there is no additional remuneration) included class tutoring (dealing with students’ health issues; sorting out problems with grants etc), special duties assisting principals/assistant principals etc. 25
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics C&C / VEC l In general, C&C and VEC teachers can speak of their having to devote at least as many hours to their job outside the class each week as they do inside it. They can however make the point that many of the additional hours are beneficial to the students and indeed to themselves from a job satisfaction perspective. l Nevertheless, some did assume that reduced salaries are probably ‘on the way’ given the current economic climate, and sounded a note of caution with regard to teachers’ tolerance-levels in the face of increasing working hours alongside reducing remuneration! l As with the Higher Level teacher respondents, a whole range of factors are seen to have emerged over the last ten years, the net effect of which has been the increase the average teachers’ workload considerably. 26
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics C&C / VEC l In no particular order these include: v Discipline. Mentioned spontaneously by all such respondents, and clearly a significant drain on teachers’ resources. v Perceived to manifest itself in a whole range of ways (abusive behaviour to teachers/pupils; foul language; lack of homework; lack of class materials…) v Attributed to a whole range of societal factors, from lack of parental interest to abuse of alcohol by students. v Resulting for some teachers in an increase in the amount of extra-curricular hours needed to coach more willing students. v Along with the generation of a considerable amount of paperwork for the teacher in relation to specific disciplinary cases (e. g. detailed recording of suspension/expulsion process). Also liaison in extreme cases with parents and/or Gardai. 27
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics C&C / VEC l Teachers were less vociferous in their views as to how this fundamental problem with discipline might be addressed, although there was quite an amount of talk of the possible establishment of off-site centres for unruly students where they could be adequately supervised. l With another potential solution (deemed implausible due to space/staff resource) the establishment of a separate supervised room within the school itself. l Many of the teachers were however critical of Section 29 of the Education Act, which is seen to be heavily biased towards the pupil’s rights, and away from those of the teacher, and indeed the school. Specifically, the fact that a student’s record is “wiped clean” every September is perceived by some to give the student Carte Blanche to behave however he/she likes. 28
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics C&C / VEC l One teacher did however praise Section 23 of the Act, whereby it is acknowledged that each student as well as his/her co-students have the right to an education. The amount of project work required (particularly for the Leaving Certificate Applied Programme) is also identified as considerable. With the above course requiring the student to produce eight tasks over the two year course period. This is one area where the teacher feels obliged to put the extra hours in, as a good project can often help push the weaker students “over the line” in terms of passing the exam. l A significant increase in the amount of administrative work required is also reported, not least due to the School Evaluation/Inspection programme. Specifically, the need to write down/record absolutely all elements of a course programme is deemed to be very labour-intensive, although the benefits of such practices to the overall educational system are generally appreciated. The timing of these inspections around exam periods was questioned. 29
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics C&C / VEC l Many teachers acknowledged that there was often a rush to complete documentation when a Whole school/subject inspection was announced. However, some claimed that even if the relevant documents were compiled throughout the year, there still was an amount of work involved to tidy and finalised them. Many teachers felt that while inspections always occurred in the past, these were particularly traumatic. l Generally teachers felt there was a lack of actual time to plan with their colleagues – only ‘emergency’ planning. l There was a general feeling prevalent amongst teachers that there now needed to be a policy for ‘everything’ (e. g. drug abuse, bullying, attendance, health & safety, pastoral care, equality, etc. ), which in workload terms was viewed as overwhelming. l Many teachers commented that they received little training on how to actually write these policy documents. On top of the latter, the administration time devoted to typing these documents was also felt to be underestimated. One teacher was extremely concerned over new emissions policies, which they felt required certain expertise outside the remit of a teacher. This person was concerned that parents could launch a challenge. The latter resulted in fear and uncertainty. 30
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics C&C / VEC l Student ability levels were also cited as a factor which has placed a greater demand on teachers’ workloads. Some feel pupils’ ability levels are simply lower nowadays compared to even ten years ago, due to a range of societal dynamics (e. g. dwindling parent interest in the educational standards of their children; increased level of student alcohol consumption, etc). Others merely point to the practice of comprising mixed ability classes nowadays, with the need for extra time to be spend on the weaker students, to the detriment of the stronger. l Again, the amount of time required to familiarise oneself with I. T. systems, and indeed to actually utilise them on a day-to-day basis, was to C&C/VEC teachers a drain on resource. In some cases, the PC’s used in the classrooms were described as old and slow, eating up valuable class time in the process. 31
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics C&C / VEC One teacher complained that neither students nor himself had explored new uses for computers in recent years, and complained that computer classroom sessions were difficult to supervise and, as a result, often haphazard affairs. This teacher’s point being that he could be spending this valuable time on more fruitful tasks with the students. l Apart from project work, the LCA programme is also seen to generate a significant amount of after-hours work for the teacher, across a range of tasks (e. g. helping students arrange work experience, organising visitors/speakers to address the classes), with the teacher often relying on friends and acquaintances to ultimately deliver in this regard! l Also the JCP was felt to entail an amount of extra work on top of the ordinary curriculum, with the need to continuously monitor students and an amount of form filling mentioned. In addition the JCSP was also mentioned in terms of workload – having to organise events, like book clubs, etc. Do note that the latter was viewed as a good programme. l The Leaving Certificate Applied also entailed significant workloads. For example, trips needed to be organised (e. g. to prisons, etc) by the teacher, some of which might be on Saturday mornings. 32
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics C&C / VEC l The new syllabuses were also felt to be adding to teacher workload. Example of the latter cited here included Leaving Certificate Journal of assignments (a backlash on the part of students was mentioned here – and that it took all of 5 th Year to obtain it from students). Subjects have been added to the Junior certificate (e. g. CSPE, PHE, religion, etc). Also the spread of secondary components to an increased range of students was felt to have increased teachers workload (e. g. science, home economics, etc). l The expansion of the curriculum has in turn had a knock on effect on the amount of marking required. The Home Economics course was in particular singled out. l Some of the teachers also served on one or more school committees and, while generally happy to “do their bit” for the school, nevertheless pointed out that all extra hours devoted to their job add up over the course of an average month, year, etc. 33
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics C&C / VEC l Examples of such committees included: v School Development Plan v School Policies Committee v Health and Safety Committee l Pupil/staff ratios were mentioned by a handful of these teachers, more so as a likely future problem (i. e. from September 2009), whereby increased class sizes will inevitably result in some of the weaker students requiring after-hours support in order to “catch up”. l Incidentally, the stipulation of a minimum twenty students per class will, in the opinion of some of these respondents, place the viability of some “minority” subjects (e. g. Music) under pressure, with an increased likelihood of teacher job losses. 34
Section Three: Second Assessment Component 35
Extent workload has increased due to demands of second assessment components Base: All involved in second assessment components: 157 TOTAL Disagree strongly Not stated Disagree slightly Neither Agree slightly Agree strongly 36
Reaction to second assessment components Base: All involved in second assessment: 157 Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly strongly Not stated Mean score Second assessment components have spread to a greater number of subjects in the past ten years (1) 4. 62 Teachers often try to bring students up in grades by revisiting their project work (1) 4. 07 (1) 3. 84 There is insufficient guidelines for teachers on how to manage second assessment components (2) 4. 00 There is a lack of set standards for project work and practical work (1) 3. 96 Some students get help at home which makes the quality of project work unrealistic (1) 3. 84 There is a lack of age appropriate standards for project work and practical work (1) 3. 64 It is unfair to ask teachers to sign off on whether project work is a student's own work or not 37
Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project Work: Qualitative Phase l Overall the expansion of the amount of secondary assessment/project work and its spread across different subjects has been impacting on teacher workloads in recent years. The following examples were cited as to how the curriculum has changed in this area: v New Home Economic syllabuses introduced 1994 – went from 1 to 3 components (practice, project and theory paper). v Leaving Cert Applied subsequently also had extra tasks. The Leaving Cert now also has a Journal of assignments “It takes the fifth year to get it out of the students. They hate it. A high number drop Leaving Cert Home Economics because of it. ” 38
Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project Work: Qualitative Phase l A number of second assessments/project work areas were cited as impacting on teacher workloads: v The lack of timetabling of tasks was often cited as an issue. These tasks included marking, helping students, reviewing work, purchasing material, etc. v The nature of completing the tasks in themselves also was perceived to have increased in workload terms: “The marking itself could take an hour at home” v Motivating students partaking in project work in itself was deemed to be quite frustrating and time consuming. The nature of the student often contributed to the latter. Teachers mentioned having to constantly chase students to complete project elements. The increasingly poor attention span of children is also impacting, making project work difficult. “They have no concept of deadlines” “Diary on work experience, has to be marked and given back, but the correction would not be done – so you have to take it home again to mark it”. 39
Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project Work: Qualitative Phase l The nature of project work often involves teachers re-marking and reviewing student work to help them improve their grades. Teachers feel obliged to do this work. l The purchasing of materials and fixing of equipment is often done or co-ordinated by teachers in their spare time. “You have to make sure the tools are fixed” “I am getting new cookers in so have to source the supplier” l General administration on project work. This centres on: v Cleaning up after students/exam practicals, etc. v Packing up materials l The amount of marking involved was perceived to have increased (e. g. Home Economics). 40
Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project Work: Qualitative Phase l Children doing surveys (e. g. CSP Projects), want to conduct them during school time. The latter was felt to interrupt classes. “So not only teaching, but have a lot of interruptions” l Preparing time in advance of practical classes also cited as being up to one hour. l Some subjects such as ‘construction’ had examples cited whereby parents would help children on their woodwork. Most teachers felt it would not be signed off, but often can be hard to prove, placing added pressure on teachers. l Special needs assistants often not trained in practical subjects (eg metal work) hence teachers still under immense pressures. l The need for planning around practical subjects such as Home Economics and applied courses is more ‘emergency planning’ rather than scheduled. l While the practical element of project work is often achieved, problems can occur in the report writing. Often teachers mentioned that they had no time to supervise or correct sufficiently (and the latter was not timetabled). v The latter writing issue is exacerbated amongst special needs students (especially those not assessed). 41
Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project Work: Qualitative Phase l The advantages of Project Work cited included: v Helps weaker students with the focus on the practical element v As it is spaced over the year for final assessment, it should be fairer. v The spread of secondary work to a range of subjects has made its inclusion more mainstream, albeit from a low base. l Some suggested improvements in the area included: v Inclusion of planning, marking and preparation into timetabled hours. (Most hours spent here) v More defined set standards for project work, including feedback to students and resultant corrections. v Recognition of the amount of work involved outside of timetabled hours v Better range of books or practical subjects for special needs children v Trained special needs assistants in practical subject areas. 42
Section Four: Special Needs 43
Incidence of Teaching a Special Needs Class Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL % School/College C&C VEC DEIS Status Yes No School Size 1 -450 450 -2000 All of the time Some of the time Do not teach one 44
No. s of special needs students (formally assessed) taught (across all classes) Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL % School/College C&C VEC Region *Dublin Outside DEIS Status Yes No None 1– 4 5– 8 9 – 15 16+ Mean 10. 98 * Note small base size 10. 87 11. 00 17. 86 9. 20 12. 43 8. 59 45
Special needs student averages Base: All VEC & C&C Teachers: 291 Q. 10 a How many students (across all classes) that have undergone formal assessment and as a consequence have been allocated additional support Q. 10 b Excluding special needs classes, what is the highest number of the above students that you teach in a single class? = Q. 10 c How many other students that you teach (across all classes ) do you think have special needs? = = Average : 10. 98 Average : 5. 60 Average : 9. 51 46
Extent working with special needs students has increased teacher workload Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL School/College C&C % % VEC % Region *Dublin % Outside % 4. 63 4. 47 DEIS Status Yes % No % 2 nd Level Assess Yes % No % Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Not stated Mean 4. 50 4. 33 * Note small base size 4. 54 4. 53 4. 444. 62 4. 34 47
Extent working with special needs students has increased teacher workload Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL % Programmes Teach Any Taught % L. Cert app % L. Cert Junior Trans V % % % 4. 53 4. 58 4. 53 Teach Spec Needs None % Any % None % School Size 450 -2000 1 -450 % % Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Not stated Mean 4. 50 4. 64 4. 40 4. 384. 58 4. 26 4. 55 4. 40 48
Extent of opinion on special needs Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Not stated Mean score I need more preparation time to effectively plan and work with special needs students (6) 4. 56 Additional equipment and materials are required in this area (6) 4. 52 I need in service on specialist skills in this area (7) 4. 26 The standard of teaching in the subjects I teach is being negatively affected for both special needs and other students The concept of integration in this area is the correct approach, but the current resources are inadequate The support available in my school/college for students with special needs is currently not adequate (9) (6) (5) 4. 01 3. 81 3. 48 49
Extent of opinion on special needs: I need more preparation time to effectively plan and work with special needs students Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL % School/College C&C % VEC % DEIS Status Yes % Special Needs Taught No % Yes % 4. 40 4. 61 No % Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Not stated Mean 4. 56 4. 43 4. 59 4. 62 4. 38 50
Extent of opinion on special needs: The support available in my school/college for students with special needs is currently not adequate Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL School/College C&C % % 3. 48 3. 27 VEC DEIS Status Yes % % 3. 53 No % Special Needs Taught Yes No % % 3. 55 3. 28 Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Not stated Mean 3. 33 51
Extent of opinion on special needs: The concept of integration in this area is the correct approach, but the current resources are inadequate Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL % School/College C&C % VEC % DEIS Status Yes % Special Needs Taught No % Yes % 3. 93 3. 76 No % Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Not stated Mean 3. 81 3. 82 3. 81 3. 71 3. 99 52
Extent of opinion on special needs: I need in-service on specialist skills in this area Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL % School/College C&C % VEC % DEIS Status Yes % Special Needs Taught No % Yes % 4. 29 No % Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Not stated Mean 4. 26 4. 31 4. 25 4. 21 4. 15 53
Extent of opinion on special needs: Additional equipment & materials are required in this area Base: All VEC & C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL % School/College C&C % VEC % DEIS Status Yes % Special Needs Taught No % Yes % 4. 42 4. 54 No % Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Not stated Mean 4. 52 4. 51 4. 52 4. 54 4. 43 54
Extent of opinion on special needs: The standard of teaching in the subjects I teach is being negatively affected for both special needs and other students Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL % School/College C&C % DEIS Status VEC % Yes % 4. 03 4. 11 Special Needs Taught No % Yes % 3. 80 4. 09 No % Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Not stated Mean 4. 01 3. 91 3. 73 55
Special Needs Students : Qualitative Comments l Respondents tended to speak here of the provision of tangible facilities for students with special needs (e. g. examination facilities; the provision of laptops; number of students and lack of support) rather than the adoption of a particular philosophy or set of policies. The latter was more for Further Education and Third Level teachers than VEC/C&C. l It is clear that teachers include the full range of physical and mental health disabilities within the definition of special needs (e. g. autism, hypertension, ADD, travellers and to some extent students from minority ethnic backgrounds, etc), with none of the respondents we spoke to aware of the existence of a Disability Officer at the Institutions. l It was mentioned however that a Disability/Social needs officer has been appointed by the VEC over 6 -7 centres, but that “it can take months to set up something” through this function. l VEC/C&C respondents mentioned that this was an area where their workload had increased. This did depend on the level and amount of special needs students in the school. At an overall level, most teachers felt that special needs students demanded more attention. 56
Special Needs Students : Qualitative Comments l Some of the workload issues highlighted in this area included: v The mix of abilities in the classes, and the need to give constant attention to these students, with some teachers adamant that they could not even ‘turn their backs on them’. v Some teachers openly admitted that it was difficult to control these students. The increasing class sizes appear to compound the latter. v That they can react sensitively (sometimes with aggression) to being taught. v Constant support required from the teacher, which can hider other students. v Work sheets need to be adjusted for these students. v Homework can have to be tailored for them. v Constant check of work needs to be undertaken. v Often if they fall further behind they can become even more disruptive. v Supports only exist for some subjects. In addition, the general feeling was that these were not sufficient for the numbers of students being mainstreamed. v Policy on special needs required. v At an overall level, more preparation time was felt to be required for classes with special needs students. 57
Special Needs Students : Qualitative Comments l General feeling existed that their was an uneven distribution of special needs students in the public sector, with Community schools having a disproportionate share. Also some felt that certain schools get a reputation for having special needs students, which limits their appeal to parents of other students. l Resources in this area were questioned by those teachers heavily involved with these type of students. Those schools with less of these type of students were relatively less concerned. 58
Section Six: Information Communication Technology 59
Internet access levels Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 DAILY ACCESS IN THE CLASSROOM TO ASSIST TEACHING OVERALL SCHOOL/COLLEGE ACCESS % % Broadband (either fixed line, WI-FI, wireless etc) Dial up Other (specify) No internet access at all Not stated 60
Daily access to other technology in classrooms to assist teaching Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 Not stated Type of Technology No access to other technology Base: All with daily access (55%) Projector Yes, have daily access 66% Laptop/PC 44% Video/DVD 23% TV 18% CD/tape recorder 13% Interactive white board/ Smart board 12% Note: answer less than 10% not shown on chart 61
Extent that using technology to assist teaching increases teacher workload preparation time Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291 TOTAL School/College Region Age School Size 450 -2000 % C&C VEC *Dublin Outside U 35* 35 -44* 45 -54 55+* 1 -450 Agree strongly Agree slightly Neither Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Not stated Mean 4. 37 4. 12 4. 43 * Note small base size 4. 06 4. 45 4. 27 4. 44 4. 38 4. 43 4. 45 4. 21 62
Comments on IT: Qualitative Phase l The level of IT access varies across schools and colleges. Thus consistency is not being delivered. l While an acknowledgment exists across all teachers that IT development is essential in schools and amongst teachers, there a number of challenges. v IT training appears to be quite ad-hoc in nature, with some teachers having to train themselves in their spare time. Thus students will receive an inconsistent end result. This serves to undermine teacher confidence in their skill set, especially amongst older teachers. v Often a teacher is assigned or takes it upon him/herself to look after the servicing and buying of equipment or contracting a resource to undertake the latter. In some cases no funding is available for IT service contracts. v Ineffective resource level (equipment) also in turn effects the consistency of teaching across schools. 63
Comments on IT: Qualitative Phase v In some instances teacher workloads can increase as they come to grips with new technology. v In addition access to the web has increased student expectations in terms of teaching style and the swiftness/newness of information. The latter in turn can increase teacher workloads. “You constantly have to put on a show – they are used to videos, etc” (VEC teacher) • However many benefits of IT were also highlighted: v Saves teaching time (saving notes, automatic filing, instant information access on the web) v Enables engagement, especially in current climate of disruptive students, low attention spans, etc. v Helps improve pupil performance v Can help teacher workloads (better management, updating and storage of work, etc). However, IT training in specific workload advantages of IT is required. 64
Скачать презентацию Teachers Workload Survey Prepared for TUI Prepared by
d7ff8398424a69ff4779e460e586514c.ppt