Memorandum submitted by Professor Michael
Bassey AcSS, (Emeritus professor of Nottingham Trent University
and Academic Secretary of the British Educational Research Association)
SUMMARY
— Too many school teachers are leaving
the profession prior to retirement age.
— There is evidence that this is attributable
in significant part to low morale resulting from lack of professional
autonomy in the classroom and over-direction by Government.
— The problem of teacher retention
can be resolved by Ministers having the political courage to recognise
that while Government intervention has been valuable, to continue
it is counterproductive to the aim of searching for excellence
in schools.
— It is submitted that, if education
is to respond to the changing needs of society and to achieve
ever higher levels of excellence, teachers must be trusted as
autonomous agents working in the best interests of both their
pupils and the State.
STAFFING HAEMORRHAGE
LINKED TO
LOW MORALE
1. The starting point of this submission
is that many school teachers are leaving the profession, prior
to retirement age.
1.1 As Professor John Howson expressed it
recently in the TES:
The seriousness of the staffing haemorrhage suffered
by English schools is underscored by new figures from the Department
of Education and Skills. During the five years up to March 2001,
more than 97,000 qualified teachers left teaching, some straight
after completing their training. This equates to almost 25% of
the active teaching force. . . . More disturbingly, nearly 36,000
teachers aged 25 to 39 quit between 1996 and 2001—an attrition
rate of 7,000 a year. (TES 14 February 2003)
1.2 Howson has also shown from DfES statistics
that of 270 secondary headteacher retirements in 1999-2000, only
70 were at the retirement age of 60. The rest retired prematurely,
with 40 of them due to ill-health. (Howson 2002, Staying Power,
National College for School Leadership)
1.3 The reasons for this "staffing
haemorrhage" seem to be primarily low morale. Evidence of
this is frequently expressed in the letters' columns of some national
newspapers by individual teachers voicing their concerns. Perhaps
the clearest piece of evidence was in a recent survey carried
out for the GTCE.
In a survey of 70,000 teachers carried out for
the General Teaching Council of England and the Guardian newspaper,
more than half said their morale was lower than when they joined
the profession. They blamed workload, government interference
and poor pupil behaviour. One in three said they would not consider
a career in teaching if they had their time again. (TES 10 January
2003)
LOW MORALE
LINKED TO
FRUSTRATIONS ON
PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY
2. The most extensive study to date is the
108 page report of Professor Alasdair Ross and Dr Merryn Hutchings,
prepared for the OECD, "Attracting, Developing and Retaining
Effective Teachers in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland". This will no doubt be separately considered
by the Committee; here it will suffice to quote some of the research
evidence that suggests why teachers may decide to leave the profession
before retirement age.
2.1 Paragraph 404—Various surveys
have shown that a substantial number of younger and mid-career
teachers are leaving for other occupations. Hutchings et al
(2000)[1]
and Smithers and Robinson (2001) both raised particular issues
about the wastage rates in the early years of teachers' careers
that affect the general age profile of the profession in England,
and particularly the maintenance of an adequate cohort of experienced
teachers from whom leadership grades can be recruited. Much of
their research evidence suggests that teachers are leaving the
profession (rather than leaving a post) because of frustrations
about their professional autonomy and their ability to be creative
in their work (ibid) . . .
2.2 Paragraph 405—A review undertaken
for the Teacher Training Agency in 2000 (Spear et al 2000)
suggested that teachers were attracted to the profession because
they enjoyed working with children and good relations with colleagues,
and valued the professional autonomy and the intellectual challenge
of teaching. Those leaving the profession did so as a result of
a high workload, poor pay, and low status and morale . . .
2.3 Paragraph 406 . . . The quality of teachers'
working lives was surveyed by the National Foundation for Educational
Research in 2002: this found that while teachers' job satisfaction
was higher than those in other comparable professions, they were
dissatisfied with their salaries and with work-related stress.
Many teachers wanted greater responsibility and involvement in
the control of their work (Sturman 2002).
2.4 Paragraph 408—A survey of teachers
by the General Teaching Council for England in late 2002 (GTC
England 2003) suggests that 35% of the 70,000 teachers who responded
are likely to leave the profession in the next five years . .
. Motivating factors included working with children (cited by
48%), the job satisfaction of teaching (32%) and the creativity
and stimulation that it brings (25%). However workload was seen
as a demotivating factor (cited by 56% of respondents), followed
by perceived overload of initiatives (39%) and the perception
that teaching has a target driven culture (35%) . . .
3. Tests, targets and league tables are
seen by many as evidence of over- interference by government.
For example:
3.1 The Canadian research team led by Professor
Michael Fullan see targets as becoming counter-productive.
High targets for 11-year-olds in maths and English
are becoming counter-productive and narrowing the curriculum .
. .
Setting targets helped mobilise the teachers
early on, said the researchers. But by 2002 the high political
stakes resting on 11-year-olds' test scores—partly responsible
for the departure of Education Secretary Estelle Morris—was
skewing teaching methods and narrowing the curriculum.
"We caution that setting ever higher national
targets may no longer serve to mobilise and motivate, particularly
if schools and local education authorities see the targets as
unrealistic." (TES 24 January 2003)
3.2 The Mathematical Association and the
London Association for the Teaching of English have recently spoken
strongly against testing.
The dominance of tests, exams, targets and league
tables leaves little space for creative people to teach in stimulating
and effective ways. Teachers feel compelled to give pupils superficial
test-passing skills rather than deep understanding and a real
sense of the value of maths. That is bad for pupils, fails to
meet the needs of higher education and employers and makes teaching
an uncongenial task . . . Removing some of the testing regime
shackles would give good maths teachers more freedom to teach
well and more time for sustained professional development. (Doug
French, Mathematical Association, TES 7 February 2003)
The London Association for the Teaching of English
claims the curriculum at seven, 11 and 14 is dominated by tests
which fail to provide reliable information about how pupils are
doing. John Wilks, general secretary of LATE, said: "The
increasing status given to SATs results through league tables
and performance management is encouraging teachers to teach to
the test. There is a real danger that the curriculum will become
increasingly narrow." (TES 17 January 2003)
3.3 The Secondary Heads Association in similar
vein has called:
for the GCSE and AS-levels to be graded by internal
assessment. It wants national tests at seven and 14 scrapped .
. . John Dunford, SHA general secretary, said: "There is
widespread recognition that there is too much testing. The only
question is where it should be reduced, and how." (TES 7
February 2003)
3.4 There is much more evidence of this
kind: the above simply represents statements reported by the Times
Educational Supplement during two months at the beginning of this
year.
FROM LEAST
STATE-CONTROLLED
IN THE
WORLD TO
MOST IN
15 YEARS
4. The English education system has moved
in the last fifteen years from being probably the least state-controlled
system in the world to the most. It is worth remembering that
in the mid-twentieth century much credit was given to our schools
for their achievements.
4.1 The historian G M Trevelyan, writing
the last page of his English Social History, in the dark
days of 1941, put a footnote:
If we win this war, it will have been won in
the primary and secondary schools.
4.2 The social writer Sir Ernest Barker,
in the 1947 edition of his National Character wrote:
Anyone who knows our State schools, primary and
secondary, will be proud of the work which their teachers are
doing to enrich and deepen national character, not only by what
they teach, but also by what they do and what they are.
4.3 Yet by the 1980s it was widely felt
that our schools were out of kilter with the needs of society
and that in particular the achievements in the basic skills of
too many pupils were inadequate in terms of the needs of the industrial
workforce and the national economy.
5. From 1988 onwards central government
intervened directly in the work of schools.
5.1 In particular central government:
— has taken increasing control of curriculum,
assessment, and recently some aspects of pedagogy;
— instituted rigorous and regular school
inspections to ensure that the above measures are enacted, and
has required that these inspection reports are made public;
— transferred much implementation of
government initiatives from local authorities to governing bodies
with enhanced powers;
— formalised the making of individual
school reports to parents and the publication of school brochures
setting out what a school offers;
— introduced performance management
for teachers; and
— in the pursuit of the above, and
many other measures, has issued to schools, governing bodies and
local authorities scores of directives, codes of practice and
documents of guidance for teachers to act on.
5.2. To many teachers it seems that every
week brings a new Government instruction for schools to work at
and, perversely it seems that some national newspapers are telling
their public that ministers should be judged as failures if they
do not keep up a relentless pressure on teachers.
INTERIM CONCLUSIONS
6. It is submitted that it is this constant
pressure, perceived as a lack of trust in teachers to make appropriate
judgements for their pupils, pushing them to an ever increasing
workload, inhibiting their creativity, and denying them the professional
autonomy of their calling, that is primarily responsible for teachers
low morale and therefore the current problem of low retention
of teacher numbers throughout the country.
7. It is further submitted that the problem
of low morale and low retention can be resolved by restoring control
over the curriculum, assessment and pedagogy to the teaching profession.
TEACHING IS
A UNIQUE
ACTIVITY UNSUITED
TO GENERAL
DIRECTIVES
8. It is in the nature of teaching that
the work of a teacher in relation to a class of students is always
unique and entails teachers making many and rapid decisions based
on their perceptions of the educational needs of individual students,
their understanding of the relevant curriculum and of effective
ways of teaching it, and their immediate assessment of the emotional
climate of their classrooms. This is what they have trained themselves
for, through initial teacher training, through day-by-day experience
in classrooms, and—when opportunity arises—through
CPD.
9. When government continually issues general
instructions intended to regiment the decisions of teachers there
can arise conflict between teachers' judgements of local and immediate
needs and government's judgements about national and long term
needs. This inevitably leads to frustration for both teachers
and government. Over recent years the former has resulted in many
teachers leaving the profession.
10. Government needs to recognise that the
problems of the 1980s, as noted in 4.3 above, have now been adequately
addressed and so it is time to stand back and re-empower teachers.
Much progress has been made in ensuring that standards of the
basic skills are appropriate for an advanced industrial nation.
But putting further pressure on teachers is likely to be counterproductive.
11. There is good evidence from the GTCE
recent survey (as cited above) that teachers have a different
conception of the prime needs of young people from that of the
current government.
11.1 One question asked, "Which three
of the following list of statements, if any, come closest to your
vision of the role of the teaching profession in the 21st century?"
These are the statements and the results:
|
| To develop the whole child | 61%
|
|
| To create active and responsible citizens |
60% |
| To inspire a love of life-long learning |
51% |
| To maximise the strengths of individuals |
49% |
| To ensure basic levels of literacy and numeracy
| 28% |
| To serve the needs of a socially cohesive society
| 20% |
| To produce a skilled and effective workforce
| 11% |
| To meet the needs of a competitive economy |
2% |
| Other | 2%
|
|
11.2. It is important to recognise that respondents could
only tick three statements. No doubt if they had had the chance
they would have ticked all of these, but as framed their answers
show that—as has ever been the case—most teachers'
first concern is for the all-round education and social development
of the child. If this is successful then it leads to a skilled
and effective workforce, which meets the needs of a competitive
economy—as government seeks.
11.3 If there were a similar enquiry among parents it
is likely that their concerns for their children would be very
similar to those of teachers.
PUTTING THE
CLOCK FORWARD
12. In arguing for returning control of teaching to the
teaching profession it is important to establish that this is
putting the clock forward, not back. The education system now
has:
— firmly established curricula and school-based
assessment practices leading to effective training in the basic
skills;
— effective systems of governance of schools and
links with local communities; and
— effective ways of reporting to parents on the
progress of their children.
These are major advances on the education system of the pre-1988
period, but there is one other factor that is highly significant—the
development of practitioner educational research.
PRACTITIONER RESEARCH
LEADS TO
HIGH QUALITY
LEARNING
13. The Teacher Training Agency and the DfES have stated
publicly that teaching needs to be a research-informed profession.
13.1 Those who have seen practitioner educational research
at its best know that it is a necessary part of 21st century education,
at all levels, because it is the most enduring and successful
way of ensuring progress towards the ever-changing ideals of high
quality learning.
13.2 Practitioner research is the form of educational
research in which ideas are tested and developed at the local
level of classroom or school. Ideally it exists in a symbiotic
relationship with educational research carried out in centres
such as universities and research institutes.
13.3 Three examples illustrate this:
The work of Professor Dylan Wiliam and Professor Paul Black
at Kings College London and colleagues on the positive effects
of formative assessment by teachers on student performance.
The work of Professor Jean Rudduck and colleagues at Cambridge
on the use of student "voice" to enhance the quality
of teaching and learning in classrooms.
The work of Dr Sue Hallam, Dr Judy Ireson and colleagues
at the Institute of Education, London on the pros and cons of
grouping children by ability.
13.4 These are examples of where "big" ideas
are developed in university centres and can be tested out by teachers
in their own classrooms and adapted to the needs of their work.
14. Thus practitioner research includes the local search
for new educational understanding leading to new practices and
policies, and the evaluation and redevelopment of old practices
and policies: it is carried out by teachers to illuminate their
own work and to inform that of others.
14.1 In the long term its advocacy by TTA and DfES may
be the most important contribution that government has made to
educational advance.
14.2. But it can only be effective if teachers are free
to harness their creativity to classroom inquiry and implement
their findings. They cannot do this if they are treated as technicians
carrying out directives from on high.
TEACHERS MUST
BE TRUSTED
TO WORK
IN THE
BEST INTERESTS
OF BOTH
THEIR PUPILS
AND THE
STATE
15. If education is to respond to the changing needs
of society and to achieve ever higher levels of excellence, teachers
must be trusted as autonomous agents working in the best interests
of both their pupils and the State.
15.1 In the words of Sir Ernest Barker quoted above,
teachers must be able "to enrich and deepen national character,
not only by what they teach, but also by what they do and what
they are."
15.2 Education is much, much more than acquiring basic
skills. In one formulation it is the experience and nurture of
personal and social development towards worthwhile living and
the acquisition, development, transmission, conservation, discovery,
and renewal of worthwhile culture.
15.3 Teachers, as the major agents of such undertaking,
need to be autonomous in action, free to be creative and to explore
ideas, highly responsible as citizens, and deeply respected for
the task that is entrusted to them.
CONCLUSIONS
16. The problem of teacher retention can be resolved
by ministers having the political courage to recognise that while
government intervention has been valuable, to continue it is counterproductive
to the aim of searching for excellence. It is submitted that it
is time to give autonomy and authority to teachers, individually
in schools, and collectively to the General Teaching Council.
17. To this end it is submitted that a Parliamentary
agreement, embracing all parties, should affirm that future actions
of government on Education will be based on the principle of teachers
having autonomous responsibility for curriculum, pedagogy and
assessment, with government having responsibility for funding
the system and ensuring that such funding is spent wisely.
2 June 2003
1
References in these quotations are in the original paper and
not reproduced here. Back
| 
