TEACHER WELLBEING


Stressed out in Scotland


Stress is a hot topic among Scotland’s teachers. Tina


T


Stockman speaks to professionals to discover the causes of their stress


his year, Scottish teacher stress has been headline news – particularly the loss of working days due to depression, mental fatigue and anxiety. SecEd highlighted this in February (Scottish teachers face greater


stress, SecEd 309, February 23, 2012), describing the response of the teaching unions to figures obtained by Scotland on Sunday. Scrutiny of the Scottish press gives a larger (but


not clearer) picture. One paper indicated that teachers blamed stress levels on spending cuts, another said they blamed the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), and yet another said the blame lay with pupil behaviour.


Research in the last 10 years on teacher stress in


Scotland include Feeling the Strain, an overview of the literature on teachers’ stress, and the Teacher Health and Wellbeing Study Scotland commissioned by NHS Health Scotland and the charity Teacher Support Scotland. The identified sources of teacher stress in these


studies include: • Workload and work/life balance. • Anticipation, worry and helplessness. • Executive roles. • Pupils’ behaviour (misbehaviour). • Poor working conditions • Relationships with colleagues/management • Poor school ethos. • Stress-related illness. • Administration. • Lack of non-contact time.


What do today’s teachers think?


Using online forums and by speaking to colleagues, I sought comments on the stress factors affecting education professionals in Scotland in 2012. The prime cause of stress was workload, in


particular the demand for aspects of the CfE to be developed simultaneously.Having to work on Personal Learning Plans, courses for S1 to S3 (covering the cross-cutting themes yet “decluttering” the curriculum) and senior courses for National 4 and 5 qualifications has created a situation akin to professional meltdown. Contributors commented that although documentation flooded into school, guidelines were


Moral support: National Children’s Bureau Alternative provision


In light of plans to reform alternative provision,Dr


Hilary Emery looks at the future challenges facing this


crucial part of our system CHARLIE TAYLOR, the government’s advisor on behaviour, conducted a recent review of the Alternative Provision (AP) sector and his recommendations have been accepted by the secretary of state. The review findings, if taken forward, will lead to systematic changes in how young people are educated outside the mainstream school system. These include: • An increased focus on the effective assessment and identification of children’s needs.


• The conversion to academy status for most PRUs by 2018.


• Schools to become responsible for the commissioning of AP and PRU services.


• Greater information sharing between schools and AP providers.


• Local quality assuring of AP and a Payment by Results trial.


• Relaxation of regulations regarding how long young people can stay in AP.


• Initial teacher training being permitted in PRUs and AP academies. Young people who attend PRUs and AP are a


highly vulnerable group. TheOffice of the Children’s Commissioner recently found shocking evidence that if you are a Black African-Caribbean boy with special needs and eligible for free school meals, you are 168 times more likely to be permanently excluded from a state-funded school than a White girl without special needs from a middle class family. Any changes to the current AP sector must


improve the health and wellbeing, welfare and educational outcomes of young people accessing these services. Our own research has shown that much still needs to be done. In 2009/10, the NCB worked with staff from six


PRUs from across England to undertake an audit of the needs of 268 young people attending these units. In this audit 41 per cent of children’s needs were judged as not being met, and more than half


(62 per cent) of these unmet needs were judged to be affecting the children’s health and wellbeing in a significant way. Areas where considerable improvements could


be made included: better adult/child relationships; support for the impact of loss, trauma and domestic violence; improved care and consistent boundaries at home; and behaviour needing to be better understood and managed. Staff involved in the audit spoke about the lack of clear multi-agency planning and limitations in supporting children’s wider wellbeing. Concern was also expressed by staff about their


pupils’ future beyond PRUs. In the year 11 PRU, half the children did not have a clear post-16 destination and many were considered to be ill-prepared academically and emotionally for their transition into further education, training or employment. Further investment needs to be made to allow all


young people leaving PRUs and AP to receive long- term social and emotional, health and educational support during their post-16 years to enable them to make a successful transition to adulthood. We will be asking for further clarity on the


relaxation of regulations, particularly with regard to the length of time a young person can stay in one AP placement. With increased accountability, schools should


be regularly reviewing the AP placements of pupils on their roll and supporting their re-integration into school at the earliest opportunity. This process can be facilitated by early assessment and effective working between AP/PRUs, local authority children’s services and local health services. Informed decisions regarding placement should always be made in partnership with the young person and their parents. As reforms to the AP sector are developed and


implemented, consideration will need to be given to the impact on local structures. This will be particularly key with regard to the proposals to offer PRUs academy status, and the commissioning of AP places by schools, as this will lessen the local authority’s role in respect of funding and decision- making processes. The duty for schools to co-operate with children’s


services still remains, and we would encourage schools to continue to engage with health, social care and education welfare services to best meet their pupil’s needs.


• Dr Hilary Emery is chief executive of the National Children’s Bureau, a national charity which works in partnership with educational charities to improve the lives of children. Visit www.ncb.org.uk


vague and remained in draft form. Assessment raised fears of “getting it wrong” (as there were few creditable examples) and consequently letting the pupils down – as well as disgracing the school when it came to an inspection. Spending cuts resulted in lower staffing levels,


fewer development days, fewer classroom assistants, less clerical support and a reduction in external cover. Tasks formerly shared by teaching and non- teaching colleagues, have, in some cases, become the responsibility of an individual. Lack of financial reward and job security are


additional stress factors. There have been pay freezes, pay cuts and confusion over pensions. One colleague commented: “We’ll be so stressed and work for so long that we’ll be dead within a year of retirement.”


contributors mentioned pupil behaviour as a major source of stress.


‘


Stress seemed more likely to emerge from a fear of letting pupils down


rather than the strain of disruptive behaviour


The future of career routes through the Chartered


Teacher programme are in doubt and the introduction of faculty heads has reduced rather than enhanced the opportunities for promotion. The picture does not seem any brighter for NQTs,


demoralised by lack of permanent jobs and the obstacles they have to face to gain even a short-term, temporary post. Teachers also said that they lack time to identify


and address their support needs and school managers – even the best – do not have resources or concrete information to help them. Another source of frustration is the reduction in the


number of subjects studied in the senior school and the truncated time in which to study for them. Headteachers are under pressure from parents,


staff and pupils to hold back on developments – yet urged by education managers, the inspectorate and politicians to drive it forward as quickly as possible. They are left struggling to lead a development from which they and their staff are becoming increasingly detached. Teachers had high hopes for the CfE, but the


promotion of collegiate learning and break-down of artificial subject barriers is an ideal yet to be fully realised.


14 ’ Not one of the


In terms of the curricular structure, the “2-2-


2 model”, consisting of three consecutive courses covering S1/2, S3/4 and S5/6 has been criticised by policy-makers for offering little in the way of challenge in the first two years and being exam-bound in subsequent years. The replacement “3-3 model”, a three-year


common course followed by three years of study at higher levels, ostensibly allows greater flexibility in teaching methods and content.However, this is seen by some members of the workforce as offering three years of unchallenging work as opposed to two and offering little of worth to less academic pupils while retaining exam pressure for the rest. Support for Learning staff wondered how they


were going to support pupils who changed schools and found themselves facing curricular content radically different from that in their previous school. A well-intentioned inclusion policy has also resulted


in children with physical disability, learning difficulties and mental health issues entering mainstream schooling, I was told. Unfortunately, there are fewer resources, training opportunities and support measures to assist both the teacher and the child. Teachers are not exempt from pressures affecting


the Scottish workforce in general. Some business organisations have addressed the problem by providing in-house health and counselling services.However, for those in education, support is often patchy, short-term, poorly funded and dependent on the degree to which the problem is taken seriously. Teachers are largely left to seek support strategies


for themselves. In some cases the strategy chosen is inappropriate, e.g. heavy drinking or over-eating, leading to additional emotional and health problems.


Conclusion


Workload was the major issue – mainly because school managers and teachers, despite confusion and lack of consultation, were determined to have something in place for their pupils. Regarding the pupils, not one of the contributors


mentioned pupil behaviour as a major source of stress. Stress seemed more likely to emerge from a fear of letting pupils down rather than the strain of disruptive behaviour. Guidelines for the curriculum continued to be


vague and requests for clarity largely ignored. Some spoke of their feelings of helplessness in the face of the apparent unwillingness by those in control to listen to requests for support and direction. The intense pressure of having curricular and


examination arrangements in place by what was considered an unrealistic deadline is having a negative effect on both personal and professional life. Even though moves are afoot for an optional delay to developments, considerable damage has already been done to teachers’ wellbeing and morale.


SecEd


• Tina Stockman is a former teacher at Harlaw Academy in Aberdeen.


Further information


For details on the services offered by Teacher Support Scotland, visit http://teachersupport.info/scotland/


SecEd • May 24 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16