Ed Sec looking to reduce teacher workload to avert strikes (England)

[noblegiraffe]

The Telegraph is reporting that Gillian Keegan has instructed the DfE to look into ways to reduce teacher workload to avoid strike action, because the government is still refusing to look at pay either this year or next.

Apparently teachers spend 22 hours a week teaching and 29 hours a week on non-teaching tasks according to research by Ofsted in 2019.

Suggestions to reduce this include 'websites that mark answers for you in maths' (Are there any maths departments without a subscription to one of these already?), and stopping trying to quantify progress for Ofsted.

Better suggestions would be:
Scrapping Ofsted graded inspections and replacing with safeguarding checks
Increasing the number of qualified teachers (improving pay would help here) to reduce workload for experienced teachers who have to plan/support/pick up after supply or unqualified teachers
Guaranteed minimum one PPA per day (this would need more teachers, see above)
Funding CAMHS and stopping expecting teachers to do this job
Funding SEN provision properly

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/15/teachers-workloads-could-cut-bid-halt-strikes-schools/ (paywalled)

Yes, primary curriculum is bonkers. What children need to do to "meet age related expectations" at 11 is ridiculous, as evidenced by the fact that only 44% of government ministers met the expected standard for 11 year olds in maths and 50% in SPAG.

The government added loads of content to ensure the higher achievers were challenges, but we all know that "more content" isn't a meaningful challenge. And it stresses out the majority of children, isn't retained long term (in the case of SPAG, isn't reviewed as secondary school curriculum doesn't even encourage recap of it) and isn't actually functional.

I blame Michael Gove. For everything!

I'm always questioning which bits of data benefit the actual students, and which bits are purely for OFSTED. I understand the need for accountability, but there's a balance to be found.

I saw a tweet the other day

A full time teacher teachers 22 lessons a week with 3 PPA

If they had a fully resourced SOL for all those lessons, they would need 10 minutes per lesson to read through the resources and get their head around the lesson, maybe adjust for their class, get worksheets, set homework. 10 minutes planning per lesson seems minimal.

Yet 10 minutes per lesson for 22 lessons is 3 hours 40. So even with a fully resourced SOL, PPA is inadequate to even plan, let alone assess!

We need more PPA time.

Education needs more money. I personally would take a reduction in class sizes, or a reduction in timetable (and I think this would make more of a difference to learning) but this would still cost money!

FWIW I'm a maths teacher, we don't have any self-marking software, and I don't think it would save me much time. I need to see WHERE the kids are going wrong. And the kids need to be doing their maths on paper with a pencil. This kind of software might be useful for independent revision maybe. And I guess it generates a lot of lovely data for OFSTED.

It is also possible to get a high 3, possibly even a borderline 4 with a few guesses on ‘common sense’ questions, in Foundation level GCSE maths using only what us on the Primary maths curriculum. It shouldn’t be possible to almost get what is counted as a ‘pass’ in an exam for 16 year olds with 5 more years of teaching behind them, using the curriculum taught pre-11. Think about it - should it be possible to pass GCSE Science, History, Geography, English Literature based purely on what you gave been taught by the end of Primary? Why are we allowing the Primary curriculum to become so over-stuffed that basic skills are insecure through lack of time to consolidate and practise?

FWIW I'm a maths teacher, we don't have any self-marking software, and I don't think it would save me much time.

We set mathswatch for homework. It marks, and has a video for each question so saves 'I didn't understand the homework' excuses as you can tell them they need to watch the video.

It also, brilliantly, shows you how much time a kid spent on each homework, but also how long they spent on each question and how many attempts they made. This has made for great conversations with parents about how little Johnny says he couldn't do his maths homework but didn't even look at the questions.

We used to mark homework, that was a massive waste of time. Told you nothing.

Obviously we still mark some classwork ( only if done in test conditions) and assessments. Self-marking software wouldn't help there.

@noblegiraffe ah, see I very rarely mark classwork thoroughly. I can see that switching from "reading out the answers" in class and marking homework properly, to marking classwork properly and having a more informative self marking homework software could be beneficial.

Also, that way they don't have pages of "unmarked" (couldn't bothered to mark their own classwork) work in their books.....

We don't mark exercises books at all in my department! I tell the kids that if their parents complain about unmarked work in books they'll be directed back to the student who should have done it.

The classwork we mark is 'exit tickets' done at the end of a lesson in silence (not every lesson) on paper, marked and then stuck into books.

I think back to the days when I used to take class sets of books home for marking with horror. I'm not sure I could leave to go to another school with a different marking policy.

I think any dept that has a 'teachers mark homework' policy should seriously rethink this.

You're marking work that could be copied off a friend, done with a tutor or parents, rushed on the bus, or not be marked at all because the kid doesn't do it. What does it tell you?

Yes, this is part of the problem. I know a local FE college which pays hourly. For every hour of teaching they pay for 30 minutes planning and assessment non contact time, which I think is probably just about reasonable (I'd probably go over it sometimes, still!)

If someone is teaching 22 hours a week, that would be 11 hours of PPA.

Or you could look at it another way- That's 33 hours of work, before you've done anything not directly related to teaching. If you add on 30 minutes of tutor time each day, then it's 35.5 which is very nearly "full time" hours, before you've attended any meetings, run any revision classes, attended any school events, answered any emails, phoned any parents etc. etc. etc.

I honestly think the only way to reduce workload is to quantify the time actually spent on PPA, and insist we are paid for it. If there was an assumption we would fit all our planning and assessment into a 40 hour work week, and be paid extra if we went over this, we'd soon see it reduced.

The thing is with Oak Academy (Pixl and all the other sources of lessons).
They rarely have anything for those in the lower boxes of progress 8.

And someone upthread saying pay more in STEM.

In most schools Technology is still a dumping ground for poorly behaved pupils that think its just hitting things with a hammer, normally backed by management that have no idea of what goes on in the subject, I can't see them wanting to pay the 'its mainly a practical subject' teachers more.

We do similar to this- exercise books are for notes/practice/self/peer assessment. We have booklets with assessed tasks in them, which students complete (in my subject) maybe once every 2 weeks, or once about every 6 lessons. I mark that and try to give useful, detailed feedback, although sometimes it ends up being a bit tick and flick.

We also do one "big" assessment about every half term, which again I mark, to look at the understanding of a topic etc. When we do this assessment, we don't also do the booklet task.

To be honest, it's still a lot of marking, but at least it feels more purposeful and does sometimes help me find and address misconceptions or gaps in prior knowledge.

Homework is self marked and is used to consolidate, or to go back and revise prior topics.

Oak (et al) also doesn't cover all subjects.

And yet many schools find DT really difficult to recruit for. It is a bit of a vicious cycle.

I've thought about the paying more in STEM thing- full disclosure, I teach science so it would no doubt benefit me to some extent. I know it would be hugely divisive, but we have to do something to try and retain teachers in these areas- but then again, we can't even get physics teachers through the door with massive bursaries.

I actually think more than subject pay scales, we maybe need to look at more pay scales linked to geographic area- I've taught in two expensive areas of the South West, and it does impact recruitment. If I didn't have family ties to the area where I live, I'd be going up north to buy a house.

Maths has so many free resources, and paid-for ones that my dept subscribes to like mathswatch. I don't understand how other departments without those resources actually cope in terms of workload. I mean, in maths we still feel very busy.

Or KS5. Obviously KS5 classes shouldn't be taught using that kind of resource anyway, but how do you develop someone to teach A-level if their whole experience of teaching is using pre-prepared online resources?

Equally, how does someone develop the planning skills needed to lead a subject if everything is decided alternatively for them.

Relying solely on external resources- as well as being terrible for students- would massively deskill staff.

I've thought about the paying more in STEM thing- full disclosure, I teach science so it would no doubt benefit me to some extent. I know it would be hugely divisive, but we have to do something to try and retain teachers in these areas- but then again, we can't even get physics teachers through the door with massive bursaries.

It's utterly ridiculous that in maths you could get a £27k tax free bursary to train, then as soon as you start teaching you're only on £28k taxed. How does that make sense? There is a huge incentive to train, take the money and run. Although people aren't even doing that these days.

I know that different pay scales for different subjects is hugely divisive, but it currently happens in stupid ways. Like the massive bursaries. Retention payments for shortage subjects in disadvantaged areas. Schools making up bullshit TLRs just to get people to apply for normal teaching jobs. Teachers being paid further up the scale than their experience.

The whole thing is a mess.

Oak is so lame. I hate the dated 'I'm talking to you from my bedroom in my mum's house' look. The sing-song voices for KS2 lessons make me cringe.

If a central 'Oak' type platform is going to be a thing, it needs to be professionally done.

They're currently hiring, if you're interested....

You can add undeserved promotions to SLT to keep S and M teachers. This is stupid, of course, because it takes them out of the classroom!

The thing is, the basic ‘core lesson’ planning and resourcing is not the main problem - it can even be used for multiple years if the Governmenteaves the curriculum alone and subject co-ordinators aren’t terrified by Ofsted into a more and more ‘knowledge rich [overloaded]’ curriculum each year.

The thing that takes the time is the adaptation to the specific needs of this year’s class - the mix of learning and behavioural needs including those working on Early Years targets long into KS2; the emotional needs; the EAL status; the different difficulties in reading / seeing / hearing / writing; the gaps in knowledge and experience - so that the original single plan and set of resources has to proliferate into 5 or 6 at a minimum. Those can’t be recycled each year and can’t be replaced by online or standardised resources.

Smaller classes, more support staff, expanded SEN schools and units, rapidly accessible expert support of all kinds (because so many of our plans are ‘well, the normal work won’t fit, let’s try this’, rather than genuinely informed and precise differentiation based on best expert medical / SEN recommendations) - all those would help. Someone to do the ‘plain vanilla’ basic lesson planning? Not so much.

The thing is, the basic ‘core lesson’ planning and resourcing is not the main problem

That might be in primary because you have so many other problems!

I was genuinely horrified during lockdown when I was trying to do home learning with my primary-aged kids and googling for resources to help them to find that they just weren't there. Or were paywalled.

I mean, in maths I can google any topic on the secondary syllabus and find a free PowerPoint, worksheet, pretty much whatever the level. Even Further Maths A-level which is poorly resourced online has Dr Frost PowerPoints (and the textbooks are decent).

I mean, I guess in primary maybe you're paying for all that stuff for every subject, but somehow I doubt it and you're actually planning from scratch a lot of the time.

For me, as said upthread, the planning and ( worthwhile)marking aren't the issues. People looking for solutions there are overlooking the other workload issues. At the end of the day, at least those two things are related to learning.

For me, as said upthread, the planning and ( worthwhile)marking aren't the issues.

But you said that's because you enjoy planning and marking, not because they didn't take you time.

Are you saying you are happy with the level of lessons taught in a week and wouldn't want this reducing?