If we really want to reduce teacher workload, first we need to measure it properly

As a career-changing classroom teacher, who moved out of industry and into teaching, I am amazed at this government’s, and previous governments’, inability to understand the problem of teacher workload.

We are all aware of the problems of teacher recruitment and retention, a major factor of which is excessive workload. Indeed, the education secretary has recently introduced measures aimed at reducing this workload. However, these measures are aimed at tackling the symptoms of excessive workload and not the problem. This is because the problem is not understood. Teachers complain about excessive workload and are given tools to help cope with it, rather than understanding why the workload is too high and action being taken to remedy it. 

Techniques have been brought into teaching in recent years aimed at increasing accountability and measuring performance. However, techniques for measuring workload, and thus setting appropriate workloads, have been ignored.

In industry a job is given a set number of minutes, set by measurement of the job. Therefore, a workload may be set that is achievable in a given time. Taking marking as an example in teaching, is it known how much deep marking should be carried out in a week? What is the difference in time marking English workbooks compared to maths workbooks? Should a subject which has students for one class a week deep mark as often as a subject which has the students for two or three classes every week, for example? Or should every subject deep mark once a fortnight?

The answer is that people do not know. There is no measure of workload and therefore no setting of appropriate workloads. Schools set out marking and feedback policies detailing how much marking should be carried out, without understanding whether this is feasible or sustainable. I wish to point out that this is not the fault of school senior or middle leaders, who have not been trained to understand this.

I will give a real-life example to illustrate my point. The marking and feedback policy at my school states that I must deep mark the work of my key stage 3 classes twice in a half-term, the remainder of the time using peer and self-assessment. I told a member of my school’s senior leadership that I would mark in a rotation, Y7 week 1, Y8 week 2, Y9 week 3, etc, and was told that this would be good. As a Computing / Computer Science teacher I see my KS3 classes once a week and teach five year nine classes. At an average of thirty students per class, this equates to approximately 150 students’ work I need to mark. If I spend 1 minute on each workbook this equals 150 minutes, or 2.5 hours. If I spend 2 minutes on each workbook, I would spend 5 hours marking, 5 minutes on each workbook would mean 12.5 hours marking Y9 workbooks. Add to this marking my KS4 and KS5 workbooks, which must be marked weekly, my own self-assessments, meetings, revision sessions, clubs, lesson planning and classroom teaching. Is this sustainable? No, it is not.

I am fortunate in having worked in industry before retraining as a teacher, therefore having the necessary skills to fall back on and assess my own workload. Graduates fresh from university, followed by a year of PGCE study, do not have the experience or training necessary to do this. They are issued with a set of demands and do their best to fulfil them. Is it any wonder retention of newly trained teachers is so poor?

I reiterate that I do not blame school senior or middle management. They have not been trained to assess workload in even this simplistic manner. I also stress that my own school has been extremely supportive and has provided much help to alleviate the symptoms of excessive workload.

The government, therefore, urgently needs to research the problem of excessive workload throughout schools using industry work study techniques, and not just issue methods designed to help alleviate the symptoms. Also, this cannot and must not be left to schools to research and implement. Resources are already stretched to breaking point throughout schools. So guidance must come from the Department for Education.

If there is no change to government and school policy, teacher retention will not improve. By association, numbers entering the profession will also not increase while it is seen as an undervalued and overworked occupation.

I implore the government to act swiftly and decisively. Substantive changes are required to teacher workload by tackling the problem, not producing measures that try to alleviate the symptoms. In short, teacher workload needs objectively quantifying before it can be tackled. This is a chance to not only help increase the wellbeing and mental health of teaching staff, but by helping to increase the effectiveness of teachers, also improve the outcomes of all students.

Paul Bailey is a computing/computer science teacher at a local authority secondary school in Derbyshire.