Mismanaging teacher retention

Civitas, 23 February 2007

School ‘improvement’ strategies which alienate teachers and thereby set schools back, have become a recurring theme under the New Labour government.

‘Through our work on teachers’ pay and conditions, we seek to contribute to the achievement of high standards in schools and good outcomes for pupils throughout England and Wales.’ This is the vision of The School Teachers’ Review Body [STRB], a body established in 1991 to [broadly speaking] examine and report on employment conditions in state school teaching. The STRB’s aspirations are laudable: ‘we envisage a world-class teaching profession’ which: ‘attracts excellent graduates; retains highly motivated and committed teachers; is fairly rewarded; is efficient, effective and accountable; is encouraged, supported and trained; and is trusted, respected and valued.’ Less laudable however, is how the current Review Body proposes to realise this vision. The STRB’s outlined aims for schools are all about ‘performance’, ‘management’ ‘assessment’ and ‘rewards’. Only the odd insertion of the word ‘school’ reminds us that the subject in hand is education not corporate strategy. As the colleague who drew my attention to the 2007 Review, a former teacher, commented, ‘it [the review] is purely management driven – nothing about job satisfaction, enjoying children etc.’ This management-driven approach is very much in line with the New Labour education reform process generally. The current government’s reforms have been characterised by ‘managerialism’: controlling the minutiae on pedagogy and procedure in schools from the centre. Crucially, the managerial approach has not managed to attract, retain or foster the desired ‘world-class, excellent, trusted, valued and respected’ teaching force. As a result, despite large investment in boosting teacher salaries, retention is a significant problem in the education system. [Hence the need for scheme after scheme to parachute graduates into teaching. Graduates who depart rather rapidly.] Indeed according to research commissioned by the DfES and carried out by Smithers and Robinson, workload ranks significantly higher than pay in reasons for quitting the profession.
Tight central control over school activity has entailed endless additional work. Following orders involves documenting both the process and the outcome. The result is widespread demoralisation – and loss of teachers. In 2003 a General Teaching Council for England/Guardian/Mori survey found that ‘many [teachers] feel ground down by paperwork and the target-setting to the point where they are ready to leave.’ 56% of the teachers surveyed thought that morale was lower than when they first joined the profession. As well as alienating teachers through workload, the regulatory burden has caused widespread resentment in relation to their professionalism. Administrative duties denote the government’s control over teachers’ activities – interpreted as ‘mistrust’. A recent study of 50 primary schools from the University of York found that current education policies were ‘viewed as an expression of the government’s lack of trust in the teaching profession – which…lowered morale and reduced teacher self-confidence.’
A truly reflective Review Body really could provide a useful service to the teaching profession: identifying and addressing what is driving teachers out. As it stands, all the STRB is doing is churning out yet more management-speak.