Teachers’ Workload Survey

Prepared for

TUI

IMAGE HERE INTO GREY AREA.

Prepared by Luke Reaper and Ian McShane

March 2010J.9871

Teachers’ WorkloadSurvey

http://www.tui.ie/

http://www.tui.ie/

http://www.tui.ie/

2

Introduction

3

Research Background1) A qualitative phase of twelve in-depth interviews structured as follows:

Three Teaching Deputy Principals and nine teachers Mix of subjects were taught (i.e. maths, music, career guidance, science,

French, metal work, woodwork, geography, Irish, Home Economics) Split between:

1) 10 interviews with VEC and C&C schools and

2) 2 interviews in Further Education/3rd Level Colleges Mix of genders of respondents Mix of urban vs rural schools

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.

4

Research Background2) A quantitative survey of 442 second and third level teachers conducted via

self-completion 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.

5

Research BackgroundC) 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: 61 VEC schools 57 C&C Schools 10 Further Educational Institutes 10 Third Level Institutes

A letter from the TUI, explaining the purpose of the research, was mailed to each principal of a selected school/college.

In addition, a letter explaining the research purpose, prepaid reply envelope and questionnaire were included in each pack mailed to teachers.

6

Research Background

442 completed TUI teacher interviews were achieved, split across the following school types: VEC 161 C&C 128 Further Education 78 Third Level 68 Not classified 7

The results were weighted by TUI membership of school/college type within region and position level.

7

Findings

8

Current ContextSection One:

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)

School/College

C&C VEC128 161% %

52 53

46 33

29 29

24 28

26 23

28 22

27 21

21 20

17 18

8 9*Answers less than 9% not charted, but are contained within the table set

9

18

53

35

29

27

24

23

22

20

Increased paperwork/admin

Increasing discipline problems

Mixed ability classes

Increased planning

More preparation for classes

Increased curriculum changes

Meetings in general

Inspections

Increased demands from parents

Homework/ corrections / marking

%

10

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

2nd Level Assessmen

tDubli

n*Outsid

e Dublin

Yes No Yes No

Base (WTD) 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 2nd assessment component in many subjects.

20 15 21 17 24 18 23

Increased demands from parents – phone calls, informal meetings / lack of co-operation from parents over discipline or homework issues. 18 11 19 14 24 20 12

Homework/ corrections / marking 9 7 9 9 10 12 5

* Small base size

11

Teacher WorkloadSection Two:

12

1.5

0.5

1.0

0.7

0.7

1.2

19.2

23.9

5.4

4.0

4.4

1.7

1.4

1.4

Timetable hours

TOTAL OUTSIDE TIMETABLE

Preparing for classes

Carrying out administrative

duties

Correcting students work

Meeting students individually

Planning with colleagues

Organising extra curricular

activities

Supporting students with special

needs

Attending staff meetings

Meeting with parents

Participation subject evaluation

work

Supporting students of minority

groups

Other

On average teachers are spending 24 hours working per week outside of timetabled teaching hours.On average 19 hours of teaching time was recorded.

Average Workload Per Week (Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers filling in the diary: 239)

School/CollegeC&C VEC104 133

18.4 19.4

21.9 24.4

4.5 5.6

3.9 4.0

3.9 4.5

2.0 1.7

1.2 1.4

1.2 1.5

1.1 1.2

0.6 0.8

0.7 0.6

0.5 1.1

0.4 0.61.8 1.4

NB: Included a mix of positions

13

35

11

9

6

5

5

26

38

Games

Musicals

Drama

School Trips

Debating

Fundraising Outings/Quiz

Others

No involvement

Q.3 If you are involved in extra curricular activities please indicate which, if any, of the following you are involved in?

Extra curricular activities involved in(Base: VEC/C+C Teachers: 291)

Age of teacheru35

35-44

45-54

55+

63*

56* 92 74*

% % % %

48 45 24 28

11 15 10 7

9 14 7 6

5 2 10 6

7 5 5 3

5 6 5 3

32 28 29 15

29 29 40 52

* Note: Small base

Total

%

14

Issues of most concern to teachers in terms of managing day-to-day workloads (spontaneous comments) (Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers: 291)

School/CollegeC&C VEC128 161% %

57 53

30 39

18 29

16 15

16 13

12 12

12 11

10 9

*Answers less than 9% not charted, but are contained within the table set

9

11

12

14

15

27

37

53Workload

Discipline

Administration

Homework/marking

Lack of resources

Practical work/projects

Mixed ability classes

Student Apathy

%

Spontaneous concern increases with age of teacher

15

Issues of most concern to teachers in terms of managing day-to-day workloads (spontaneous comments) (Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers: 291)

Total

Region Q33 DEIS Status

Q8 2nd Level

AssessmentDubli

n*Outsid

e Dublin

Yes

No Yes No

Base (WTD) 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* Small base size

16

Opinion of workload in the last 5 years(Base: VEC/C&C Teachers: 291)

87

87

85

82

81

81

78

76

75

72

6928

19

15

12

15

15

13

12

11

10

9

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

0

1

1

0Carrying out administrative duties

Participating in school development planning

Addressing a wider range of student abilities in a class

Using information technology to assist teaching

Working outside of timetabled hours

Dealing with class discipline/conflict

Participating in subject inspection

Supporting/working with special needs assistants

Participating in whole school evaluation

Supporting special needs students

Dealing with other student behavioural issues (e.g. pregnancies, drugs/crime, bullying)

In your opinion has your workload in the following areas …

Decreased Remained Increased the same

N/A Don’t

know

0 30 30 34 20 40 20 56 40 94 44 4

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

17

Opinion of workload in the last 5 years(Base: VEC/C&C Teachers: 291)

63

63

62

62

55

55

53

52

50

37

3228

30

25

33

15

38

20

14

33

31

33

2

3

3

2

5

7

5

3

2

1

2

N/A Don’t

know

0 1

12 9

0 3

0 4

15 8

0 5

0 5

17 5

19 13

22 7

13 25

In your opinion has your workload in the following areas …

DecreasedRemained Increasedthe same

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Meeting students individuallySupporting minority students a) those from

migrant background Preparing for classes

Dealing with parental demands

Conducting project work/field work a) associated with state examinations

Dealing with growing student numbers in class

Correcting student workMeeting /supporting parents of special needs

students

Supporting minority students b) Travellers

Meeting/supporting parents of minority students

Conducting project work/field work b) other than that associated with state examinations

18

Top Teacher Duties in terms of workload(Base: VEC/C+C Teachers filling in the question :264)

22

25

10

8

5

8

2

3

3

2

4

2

9

7

13

8

10

8

6

3

5

8

4

6

11

9

9

12

6

7

3

2

2

8

7

1

40

42

40

43

49

40

46

46

37

29

25

30

Mentioned1st 2nd 3rd Other ranking (4-10)

Not rated in top 10

17

18

27

28

31

37

42

48

53

53

60

60

Any mention in top

ten%83

82

73

72

69

63

58

52

47

47

40

40% ranked on any mention in top 10 duties

Working outside of timetabled hours

Dealing with class discipline/conflict

Preparing for classes

Carrying out administrative duties

Addressing a wider range of student abilities in a class

Correcting student work

Supporting special needs students

Participating in school development planning

Meeting students individually Dealing with other student behavioural issues (e.g. pregnancies, drugs/crime,

bullying)

Conducting project work/field work a) associated with state examinations

Using information technology to assist teaching

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

19

Top Teacher Duties in terms of workload(Base: VEC/C+C Teachers filling in the question : 264)

1st 2nd 3rd Others

Not rated in top 10

60

61

71

65

77

79

80

88

89

89

Any mention in top

ten%40

39

29

25

23

21

20

12

11

11

Participating in subject inspection

Participating in whole school evaluation

Dealing with parental demands

Dealing with growing student numbers in class

Supporting minority students a) those from migrant background Supporting minority students b)

Travellers

Supporting/working with special needs assistants

Meeting/supporting parents of minority students

Conducting project work/field work b) other than that associated with state

examinations

Meeting /supporting parents of special needs students

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

2

1

3

3

1

2

3

5

5

4

1

2

2

2

35

31

22

27

20

16

16

12

10

9

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% ranked on any mention in top 10 duties

20

Prompted assessment of specific workload factors : SummaryExtend workloads has increased due to following elements(Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291)

27

71 4 3

1 3

5959 58

81

24

12

25

85

9

0 102 2 45

Agree strongly

Agree slightlyNeither

Disagree slightlyDisagree strongly

Don’t know

*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

% % % %

* Note: Based on all involved in second assessment components

21

Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics

Across-the-board agreement that teachers’ workload has increased dramatically over the last ten years or so.

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

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.

In no particular order, these factors included: 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.

22

Teachers’ Workload: Key DynamicsFURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL

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.

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.

Teachers can also talk of the need to spend time and energy rendering course content more engaging and accessible for lower ability students.

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.

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+.

23


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.

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.

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.

24


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.

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.

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.

25


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 overly-onerous, 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!

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.

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.

26

Teachers’ Workload: Key DynamicsC&C / VEC

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.

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!

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.

27


In no particular order these include: Discipline. Mentioned spontaneously by all such respondents, and clearly

a significant drain on teachers’ resources. Perceived to manifest itself in a whole range of ways (abusive behaviour

to teachers/pupils; foul language; lack of homework; lack of class materials…)

Attributed to a whole range of societal factors, from lack of parental interest to abuse of alcohol by students.

Resulting for some teachers in an increase in the amount of extra-curricular hours needed to coach more willing students.

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.

28


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.

With another potential solution (deemed implausible due to space/staff resource) the establishment of a separate supervised room within the school itself.

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.

29


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.

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.

30


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.

Generally teachers felt there was a lack of actual time to plan with their colleagues – only ‘emergency’ planning.

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.

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.

31


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.

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.

32


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.

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!

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.

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.

33


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 5th 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).

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.

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.

34


Examples of such committees included: School Development Plan School Policies Committee Health and Safety Committee

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”.

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.

35

Second Assessment Component

Section Three:

36

Extent workload has increased due to demands of second assessment componentsBase: All involved in second assessment components: 157

TOTAL

Agree strongly

Agree slightly

Not stated

NeitherDisagree slightly

Disagree strongly

37

Reaction to second assessment componentsBase: All involved in second assessment: 157

53

47

43

42

42

28

17

17

28

32

25

29

20

18

12

11

16

24

8

13

8

5

12

1

6

10

2

6

11

5

77 11 6

3

3 4.62

4.07

3.84

4.00

3.96

3.84

3.64

Mean score

Agree strongly

Agree slightly Neither

Disagreestrongly

Not stated

Disagreeslightly

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(1)

(1)

(1)

Second assessment components have spread

to a greater number of subjects in the past ten

years

Teachers often try to bring students up in

grades by revisiting their project work

It is unfair to ask teachers to sign off on whether

project work is a student's own work or not

There is insufficient guidelines for teachers on

how to manage second assessment components

There is a lack of set standards for project work

and practical work

Some students get help at home which makes the quality of project work

unrealistic

There is a lack of age appropriate standards for project work and practical

work

38

Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project Work: Qualitative Phase 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: New Home Economic syllabuses introduced 1994 – went from 1 to 3

components (practice, project and theory paper). 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.”

39

Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project Work: Qualitative Phase A number of second assessments/project work areas were cited as impacting on

teacher workloads: The lack of timetabling of tasks was often cited as an issue. These tasks

included marking, helping students, reviewing work, purchasing material, etc. 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”

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”.

40

Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project Work: Qualitative Phase 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.

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”

General administration on project work. This centres on: Cleaning up after students/exam practicals, etc. Packing up materials

The amount of marking involved was perceived to have increased (e.g. Home Economics).

41

Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project Work: Qualitative Phase

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”

Preparing time in advance of practical classes also cited as being up to one hour. 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.

Special needs assistants often not trained in practical subjects (eg metal work) hence teachers still under immense pressures.

The need for planning around practical subjects such as Home Economics and applied courses is more ‘emergency planning’ rather than scheduled.

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). The latter writing issue is exacerbated amongst special needs students

(especially those not assessed).

42

Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project Work: Qualitative Phase The advantages of Project Work cited included:

Helps weaker students with the focus on the practical element As it is spaced over the year for final assessment, it should be fairer. The spread of secondary work to a range of subjects has made its

inclusion more mainstream, albeit from a low base. Some suggested improvements in the area included:

Inclusion of planning, marking and preparation into timetabled hours. (Most hours spent here)

More defined set standards for project work, including feedback to students and resultant corrections.

Recognition of the amount of work involved outside of timetabled hours Better range of books or practical subjects for special needs children Trained special needs assistants in practical subject areas.

43

Special NeedsSection Four:

44

Incidence of Teaching a Special Needs ClassBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

9 8 9 125

144

6358

6565

59

69

2734

26 23

36

17

37

58

TOTAL%

School/CollegeC&C

DEIS StatusYes

All of the time

Some of the time

Do not teach one

VEC No

School Size1-450 450-

2000

45

No.s of special needs students (formally assessed) taught(across all classes)Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

17 14 1710

18 17 14

2035

1720

21 19

17

17

17

13

1815

18

26

16

28

20

27

23

30

18

24

2538

2120 16 13

TOTAL%

School/CollegeC&C

Region*Dublin

None

1 – 4

5 – 8

9 – 15

16+

VEC OutsideDEIS

StatusYes No

Mean 10.98 10.87 11.00 17.86 9.20 12.43 8.59

* Note small base size

46

Special needs student averagesBase: All VEC & C&C Teachers: 291

How many students (across all classes) that have undergone formal assessment and as a consequence have been allocated additional support

Q.10a

Excluding special needs classes, what is the highest number of the above students that you teach in a single class?

Q.10b

Average : 10.98

Average : 5.60

How many other students that you teach (across all classes ) do you think have special needs?

Q.10c Average : 9.51

=

=

=

47

Extent working with special needs students has increased teacher workloadBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

5953

6068

5662

51

66

48

27

26

2822

2924

712

6 68 8 5 5

10

1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 31 05 5 5 4 5 6 4 5

34

2436

00000 0 06

TOTAL

% % % % % % % % %

School/CollegeC&C Outside*Dublin

Region DEIS Status

2nd Level AssessYes

Mean 4.50 4.33 4.54 4.63 4.47 4.53 4.44 4.62 4.34

Agree strongly

Agree slightly

NeitherDisagree

slightlyDisagree strongly

Not stated

VEC No Yes No


48

Extent working with special needs students has increased teacher workloadBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

59 6268

5971

52 47

67

35

64

51

2728

23

28

21

34

2631

77 7

77

9

8

6

10

5

10

1 01 2

2 2

12

516 18

2 7

27

35

25

111 0

1

00

0

1000 0 05 0102 3

TOTAL

% % % % % % % % % % %

Programmes TeachAny

Taught JuniorL.CertV

Teach Spec Needs

School SizeAny

Mean 4.50 4.53 4.58 4.534.64 4.40 4.38 4.58 4.26 4.55 4.40

Agree strongly

Agree slightly

NeitherDisagree


Not stated

L.Certapp None 1-450

450-2000Trans None

49

Extent of opinion on special needsBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

4.56

4.52

4.26

4.01

3.81

3.48

Mean score

Agree strongly

Agree slightly Neither

Disagreestrongly

Not stated

Disagreeslightly

(6)

(6)

(7)

(9)

(6)

(5)

I need more preparation time to effectively plan

and work with special needs students

Additional equipment and materials are required in

this area

I need in service on specialist skills in this area

The standard of teaching in the subjects I teach is

being negatively affected for both special needs and

other studentsThe 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

50

Extent of opinion on special needs:I need more preparation time to effectively plan and work with special needs studentsBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

63 60 6369

48

71

42

2320

23 17

36

21

89

7 7 98

6

1 42 0

3

16 6 6 5

21

27

10

00 0

0

06

TOTAL% % % % % % %

School/CollegeC&C

DEIS Status

Special Needs TaughtYes

Mean 4.56 4.43 4.59 4.62 4.40 4.61 4.38

Agree strongly

Agree slightly

NeitherDisagree


Not stated

VEC No Yes No

51

Extent of opinion on special needs:The support available in my school/college for students with special needs is currently not adequateBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

30 32 30 30 2733

22

2614

29 2825

27

10

12

10 1011

11

9

17

20

16 1718

20

10

16

5 5 5 5

18

23

9101011 15

17

05

TOTAL

% % % % % % %

School/CollegeC&C

DEIS Status


Mean 3.48 3.27 3.53 3.53 3.33 3.55 3.28

Agree strongly

Agree slightly

Neither

Disagree slightly

Disagree strongly

Not stated

VEC No Yes No

52

Extent of opinion on special needs:The concept of integration in this area is the correct approach, but the current resources are inadequateBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

4046

39 38 42 40 42

2519

26 2524 27

9 9 97

14 11

3

11 13 1012

8 12

6

96 4 7 7 1

21

19

9

1199 6

9

6

TOTAL School/CollegeC&C

DEIS Status


Mean 3.81 3.82 3.81 3.71 3.93 3.76 3.99

Agree strongly

Agree slightly

Neither

Disagree slightly

Disagree strongly

Not stated

VEC No Yes No% % % % % % %

53

Extent of opinion on special needs:I need in-service on specialist skills in this areaBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

5158

50 4757 54

43

24

23

24 26

19 26

126

13 15 6

13

7

6 6 6 67

5

9

37 4 7 7 1

23

16

1011 3

2

8


DEIS Status


Mean 4.26 4.31 4.25 4.21 4.29 4.29 4.15

Agree strongly

Agree slightly

Neither

Disagree slightly

Disagree stronglyNot stated

VEC No Yes No% % % % % % %

54

Extent of opinion on special needs:Additional equipment & materials are required in this areaBase: All VEC & C&C Teachers: 291

64 64 64 64 6169

50

19 23 18 2018

18

8 58 8

8

9

4

3 3 4 2 6

5

16 4 6 6

20

21

3 0000 0

1

06

TOTALSchool/CollegeC&C

DEIS Status


Mean 4.52 4.51 4.52 4.54 4.42 4.54 4.43

Agree strongly

Agree slightly

NeitherDisagree slightlyDisagree strongly

Not stated

VEC No Yes No% % % % % % %

55

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 studentsBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

41 41 41 4434

46

28

27 26 27 27

28

30

11 13 11 916

12

10

5 74 4 6

4

7

79 5 10 10

28

18

6

666 8

8

29


DEIS Status


Mean 4.01 3.91 4.03 4.11 3.80 4.09 3.73

Agree strongly

Agree slightly

Neither

Disagree slightly

Disagree strongly

Not stated

VEC No Yes No% % % % % % %

56

Special Needs Students : Qualitative Comments 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.

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.

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.

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.

57

Special Needs Students : Qualitative Comments Some of the workload issues highlighted in this area included:

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’.

Some teachers openly admitted that it was difficult to control these students. The increasing class sizes appear to compound the latter.

That they can react sensitively (sometimes with aggression) to being taught. Constant support required from the teacher, which can hider other students. Work sheets need to be adjusted for these students. Homework can have to be tailored for them. Constant check of work needs to be undertaken. Often if they fall further behind they can become even more disruptive. Supports only exist for some subjects. In addition, the general feeling was that these

were not sufficient for the numbers of students being mainstreamed. Policy on special needs required. At an overall level, more preparation time was felt to be required for classes with special

needs students.

58

Special Needs Students : Qualitative Comments

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.

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.

59

Information Communication Technology

Section Six:

60

Internet access levelsBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

OVERALL SCHOOL/COLLEGE ACCESS

%%

DAILY ACCESS IN THE CLASSROOM TO ASSIST TEACHING

Broadband (either fixed

line, WI-FI, wireless etc)

Dial up

Other (specify)

No internet access at all

Not stated

61

Daily access to other technology in classrooms to assist teachingBase: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

No access to

other technology

Yes, havedaily access

Not statedType of Technology

Base: All with daily access (55%)

Projector 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

62

Extent that using technology to assist teaching increases teacher workload preparation time Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291

5951

60

47

62

46

63 6268 65

48

2426

23

25

23

40

21

29

98

9

13

7 58

10 107

11

47

38

3 2 7 54

56 0 2 1

33 2 3 3 4 3 2 5

26

1712

0322 1 4 43 4 0

TOTAL

%

School/College

C&C

Region

*Dublin

Mean 4.37 4.12 4.43 4.06 4.45 4.27 4.44 4.38 4.43 4.45 4.21

Agree strongly

Agree slightly

NeitherDisagree slightlyDisagree strongly

Not stated

VEC Outside

Age

U35* 35-44* 45-54 55+*

School Size

1-450450-2000


63

Comments on IT: Qualitative Phase

The level of IT access varies across schools and colleges. Thus consistency is not being delivered.

While an acknowledgment exists across all teachers that IT development is essential in schools and amongst teachers, there are a number of challenges. 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.

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.

Ineffective resource level (equipment) also in turn effects the consistency of teaching across schools.

64

Comments on IT: Qualitative Phase

In some instances teacher workloads can increase as they come to grips with new technology.

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: Saves teaching time (saving notes, automatic filing, instant information

access on the web) Enables engagement, especially in current climate of disruptive students,

low attention spans, etc. Helps improve pupil performance Can help teacher workloads (better management, updating and storage of

work, etc). However, IT training in specific workload advantages of IT is required.

Documents

Teachers’ Workload Survey