As teacher recruitment and retention rates reach alarming levels, much is being made of how the sector can boost both areas through more flexible working.

Unfortunately, the ability to work flexibly will only get you so far if, when you return to school from a day off in term time or from doing some planning, preparation and assessment at home, you face an insurmountable mountain of work.

Workload remains a thorn in the side of education, yet there has been no effective resolution. So, if we are to make teaching an attractive sustainable career, manageable workloads must become a reality.

This is why the recommendation in a recent report by Education Support is so welcome, namely that the sector should: “Consider whether ‘1,265’ directed hours and uncapped ‘undirected’ hours should be replaced with contractual working hours that are more reflective of teachers’ working day and the modern workplace, whilst giving schools the resource and flexibility to grant allowances where teachers’ work outside those patterns.”

It notes that the 1,265 rule was first introduced by the Burnham Committee in the 1970s and codified in 1991 - nearly 50 and over 30 years ago respectively. As the report says: “Teachers’ responsibilities have evolved significantly since the 1970s, and the uncapped number of undirected hours has eroded teachers’ work-life balance, driving them out of the profession.”

What other options do we have? 

Finding appropriate comparisons to inform the quantity and structure of contracted hours is problematic because they must align with the needs of the sector and compare favourably with similar graduate professions.

There are two credible possibilities. Because teachers are part of the public sector, would it be reasonable to mandate as the norm for civil servants a working week of 37 hours (42 including lunch hours) and holiday entitlement of 22-30 days plus bank holidays?

But to dispense with a key attraction of the job - namely school holidays - in the interests of spreading the load, as well as cutting, it could deepen retention and recruitment difficulties and have a considerable, wider social upheaval, too.

Alternatively, there could be mandatory working days during holidays to make up the contractual hours - or longer school days with the intent that it should mean weekends are more able to be properly used as personal time, rather than Sunday planning and marking.

To do this, teachers could have their hours reset against established norms in other high-performing Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, such as the Netherlands. Dutch teachers are required to do an annual maximum of 1,659 hours a year, 750 in the classroom “and the rest by agreement with school management”. 

Notably, Dutch teachers report spending less individual time planning and preparing lessons (4.9 hours per week, ranking 47/50) Furthermore, Holland has one of the highest proportions of teachers who agree that they have control over determining course content (95 per cent, ranking 5/50 in 2018).  Moreover, 32 per cent of Dutch teachers are over 50, compared with England’s 18 per cent.

Evaluating content and structure of workload

Strict adherence to contracted hours can only be possible through evaluation of all components of workload though. 

Some schools already require middle and senior leaders to ensure that initiatives don’t add to teachers’ burdens, while a more holistic move could be to require all schools to sign up for the Education Workforce Wellbeing Charter, which included among its aims a reduction in workload.

That was a welcome point, as it is clear teachers in England suffer from this notably in areas such as lesson planning and marking.

Of course, though, reducing workload by “taking away” requirements from teachers is not a silver bullet. For example, reducing lesson planning by creating lesson scripts may sound welcome but could detract from the element of teaching that most enjoy, namely the opportunity to be creative in the classroom. 

What’s more important is ensuring there is trust and autonomy for teachers by removing micromanagement and giving them the flexibility to work as they see fit - something that should keep teachers in the profession longer without compromising quality. 

No workload evaluation is complete without considering the role of technology in monitoring. 

It enables managers to interpret more data, but, according to one focus group member, it entails a demoralising duplication of effort to input data into multiple online forms. Schools should investigate ways to ensure that the tech - not the human - does the heavy lifting.

No creep back to uncapped undirected hours

If hours were changed and workload cut as a result, it would require vigilance to maintain this and ensure there was no creep back to uncapped undirected hours.

Has the time come for schools to appoint a senior leader or governor to take on responsibility for staff workload and wellbeing? 

The obvious external overseer is Ofsted, which already contains staff wellbeing in its remit. Ironically, this is the very body that Education Support authors blame for creating the workload-generating anxiety, and recommends “a formal review of school accountability, including the function of Ofsted, looking specifically at the pressure it places on teachers”. 

This is by no means a side issue because of the impact that fear of Ofsted and its increasingly intrusive inspection framework on teachers’ workload, which is why the Commons Education Select Committee’s inquiry into the inspectorate’s role is so welcome. 

Time to think about the future

Time may be running out for this government, so it may fall to a future administration to address the retention crisis. Although contracted time seems the best way forward in light of nine years of failed attempts to substantially reduce workload; it is far from easy to implement. 

Binding legislation to limit contractual hours is only the first step, with enforcement to prevent any slipping back. Shrinking workload is only successful if professional autonomy is not sacrificed to oversimplified easy wins. 

However, the report’s work in raising the idea of changing something that seems so embedded in education is to be welcomed for making us think hard about how we make the job of teaching truly manageable. 

The devil, as ever, is in the detail. But configuring working patterns so they harmonise with personal and family commitments in the 2020s, so that a career in teaching remains distinctive and tenable, must surely be reckoned with in the not-too-distant future.

Yvonne Williams, who has been teaching for more than 30 years, was a member of the Department for Education Marking Policy Review Group, which looked at teacher workload in 2015-16