Dear Anonymous,
I was moved by your plight: returning to England to resume your teaching career, you are encountering some of the most intensive practice known to modern pedagogues. It’s very hard to comprehend how the profession has allowed itself to become so bogged down in “deep marking”, and how anyone should think that the production of a week’s worth of lesson plans in advance constitutes good practice.
The first unnecessary excess - “deep”/“triple-impact”/“dialogic” marking - is an attempt to ensure that Assessment for Learning is highly visible. While there is something laudable in ensuring that pupils read, take note of and act on previous marking, there is no evidence that this labour-intensive practice advances their learning further than any other method.
Not only is it a terrible waste of everyone’s time and effort, it’s also a reason why teachers leave schools that still insist their staff carry it out. I would like to assure you that not every school is so behind the times. Moreover, schools that have ditched excessive marking are much more efficient: pupils learn better through more classroom-based feedback systems, and Ofsted inspectors have been happy to award these schools “outstanding” grades. Such schools are beacons of pupil- and teacher-friendly practice.
The second unnecessary excess - the weekly lesson plans - takes up far too much time at weekends for most teachers. It does not allow for much flexibility in the system and is inefficient. More and more schools are instead going down the route of joint planning, whereby the preparation is shared out. Alternatively, a number of influential members of the education community, for example Tim Oates, strongly advocate the purchase of textbooks to provide high-quality tested materials - though, obviously, these come at a price (quite a high price) and so may not be the most viable option.
Because you have been out of the country for a few years, you may have missed the Workload Challenge of 2014 in which teachers were invited to respond online to questions about workload. Nearly 44,000 took up the offer. This may reassure you that you are far from being alone in your unhappiness and that the concerns you raise are justified.
From this ground-breaking consultation, the Department for Education brought together focus groups derived from those who had left their names and contact details. In 2015-2016, workload review groups on marking, planning and data entry were formed, each making recommendations within six months. At the same time, a study (A Marked Improvement) undertaken by the Education Endowment Fund was completed, and its recommendations about the most efficient assessment practices publicised.
I know that you are short of time to reflect but I would recommend that you read at least the recommendations in these reports as they will tell you a lot about how your school could improve its practice. This suite of research has been extended further to embrace funded studies in 10 more schools to experiment with different strategies, including a no-marking one in Cheshire. The findings can be accessed on the DfE website.
More data doesn’t mean better grades
I understand how hard it is for schools to change their practice. Expectations about what will get them the best Ofsted grades have been founded on the mistaken belief that the more evidence that is in pupils’ books - in data generated frequently and the high volume of lesson plans - the higher the grade.
For so long schools have protected themselves by sharing their understanding of what inspectors want to see through heads in a cluster group. Unfortunately, the wrong messages can be shared. That’s why the recent myth-busting YouTube video is so important. Education secretary Damian Hinds states the government’s position on excessive workload, chief inspector Amanda Spielman and Sean Harford (Ofsted) make it clear that Ofsted is not expecting reams of evidence; and various schools that have found ways of reducing workload share their success. To date, there have been 33,325 views which shows that the message is being shared.
A most compelling voice comes from headteacher Dawn Copping, the chair of the marking workload group. Her teachers have time to address the daily work of all pupils in ways appropriate to their age. If some concepts are not grasped well then reteaching is a better approach than writing copious corrections on all books. Many teachers and leaders have contacted her
The new draft Ofsted Inspection Framework refers to the need for senior leaders to ensure that workload is taken into account when deciding on policies: “Leaders engage with their staff and are aware and take account of the main pressures on them. They are realistic and constructive in the way they manage staff, including their workload.” This is not as strongly worded as it might be because it is expressed more as a wish than a command and could easily be overlooked in an overall judgement about the quality of leadership. However, there is evidence that change is in the air.
I hope very much that you will continue to teach, not just because there are too many teachers who have left the profession (many in their first five years). You seem both positive and caring as you try to see the merits of the tasks that are taking up too much of your time. The big question is whether you should remain in a school that seems so stuck in its ways and unenlightened in its practices. That is something only you can decide.
Your article reminds us that there is still some way to go before a proper work-life balance is achieved.
I wish you luck whatever path you take.
Yvonne Williams is a head of English and drama in the South of England
