SPTC's Survey on the Cut in Teacher's Class Contact Time - Report

Click on "Read More" to read the report.

SPTC's Survey on the Cut in Teacher's Class Contact Time - Report

Introduction

Reports that some secondary schools in Highland Region might have to cut the number of Advanced Higher Courses they offered because of an impending one-hour cut in secondary teachers' class contact time prompted us to wonder how much parents' knew about the proposed changes.

Process

In order to find out, we sent the attached sector-specific surveys to all of our 1440 member schools in April 2006; we also made the surveys available on our website. Although we did not ask members to distribute the survey more widely, several schools did send it out to all parents; but where we had a single response from a school it was often made clear in comments it was the product of discussion. More respondents than in any previous survey took up our invitation to add their own comments.

Response

We heard back from 178 schools (a response rate of just over 12%; which is higher, in terms of schools, than any previous survey):-

• 144 primaries (of which 20 sent multiple responses totalling 150 individuals)

• 31 secondaries (of which 2 sent multiple responses totalling 9 individuals)

• 1 primary/secondary, responding as a primary school and giving 5 individual responses

• 2 special schools (1 responding as a primary and 1 as a secondary).

The schools came from across 31 local authorities (the exception was Inverclyde). We could not identify the authority for 11 schools.

For the purpose of analysis, the two special schools and the primary/secondary school are included within the sector for which they responded. Individuals are treated separately and their schools are not included in the “school” figures.

Feedback

Question 1

Respondents were asked if they were aware of the changes to teachers' class contact time. The majority of both primary and secondary respondents said “yes”, but respondents from primary schools showed the greatest awareness.

Those who answered “yes” were then asked if they had got the information from their child's school. Once again, the overall majority and the majority in primary schools said “yes”, but the picture is different in secondary schools with the majority saying “no”.

However, when we combine those who did not know of the changes with those who had not received information from the school (see “N + YN” in the table above), the picture changes with 58% overall and a clear majority in each group falling into this category. Moreover, respondents' comments throw considerable light on who got information and how it was provided.

A number of people commented that they knew of the cut in teachers' class contact time because they were active in the school in some way – on the school board, as a parent helper, teacher or member of the non-teaching staff. However, such respondents also made it clear that the information was not widely known.

A general discussion on these matters showed up that those parents on the school board or who attended PTA meetings or who regularly helped in school were more aware of these matters. Notes sent out were general, about class schedules, and some thought this was just because we had a probationer teacher.

• I am aware of these implications as I am a non-teaching member of the staff at this school. As a parent I am not aware of any correspondence relating to this.
• A number of those who said that they had got the information from the school commented that our survey and Backchat newsletter had either been the source of information or had prompted the school to provide the information.
• Until this (the survey) arrived we were not aware of changes.

Proposals were discussed at the PTA meeting…The next newsletter will explain the position to all parents.

Some people were aware of bits of information but only from receiving this questionnaire and PTA discussions relating to Backchat. No information has been provided by the school or local authority.

Some headteachers claimed to be as ignorant as parents, as is indicated by the following comments from primary schools where changes were first introduced in August 2004.

• I have spoken to the Head on this subject and she is waiting for guidance from the Authority.
• The Headteacher had only recently received information about this and had not had time to disseminate it.

However, in general, respondents were critical of the poor communication from their school and said that they had to depend on feedback from their own children for what they knew.

• I think my child's school should be more forthcoming with info. If I hadn't had this letter I would not have known about the changes and I know that more parents in the school don't know about it.
• I feel parents are kept in the dark as far as the implications of the McCrone Deal are concerned.

Parents are not aware of the arrangements in their child's class. I only know if my child has another teacher if she tells me.

Although, one parent did admit, I may be unaware due to not reading literature that has been previously sent out.

Respondents were not asked for comments on the changes to teachers' class contact time but many were quite forthcoming in their criticism.

• How did this get agreed? It is crazy! Unbelievable! Who else can say that 2.5 hours constitutes ½ a day of work?
• Any cuts in the hours that teachers actually teach can only have a negative effect on pupils.
• I feel quite annoyed to find out that my daughter will be losing teaching time at school while teachers' salaries still rise.
• Why can't the report writing/planning etc. not be done after school or in the generous holiday period? How much non-teaching time do they want in their “teaching career”?

However, not all comments were critical and one respondent said, very reasonably,

• Broadly I am in favour of teachers having time to prepare for classes during the working hours so long as the process is well managed and teachers use the 2.5 hours constructively.

What is clear is that respondents were very interested but surprised to learn of the changes to teachers' class contact time and a number of them asked for more information.

Question 2

We asked people if they knew what was happening in their child(ren)'s school as a result of the cut in teacher contact time. Secondary respondents – both schools and individuals – were much less aware of changes than their primary counterparts (36% of secondary schools/ individuals compared to 61% of primary schools/individuals). However, this is not surprising as in secondary schools changes will be implemented for the first time in August 2006 whereas, in primary schools, a 1.5 hour cut in teacher contact time was implemented in August 2004 and is due to be increased by a further hour in August 2006. It does suggest that parents are not given information in advance of change; they learn about it afterwards.

In terms of what is actually happening next year, only 15% of secondary school respondents gave any information. The most commonly cited change was that small classes would not be allowed to run and this in turn meant that the options available for vocational courses, Higher and Advanced Higher would be limited. Although the questionnaire went out after youngsters should have made their subject choices, a couple of secondary respondents did comment that the questionnaire was too early as “final classes/numbers are not yet decided.”

Knowledge amongst primary respondents was more extensive with 58% of primary schools and 68% of primary individuals giving some detailed information. Respondents were asked to say not only what happened, but also how frequently i.e. usually or sometimes. The following table lists all responses from the primary sector.

With both groups – individuals and schools – the first three options were most commonly mentioned. On a formula that gives greater weight to “usually” than to “sometimes” then the order for school respondents is “second class teacher”, followed by “specialist teacher” and then “headteacher/depute takes the class”. With individuals, the order of the top two is reversed, but then the individuals are drawn from only 20 primary schools as against the 125 primary schools contributing the school responses. This certainly accounts for the difference. Overall, there is a fairly even balance between those who have a second class teacher and those for whom the cut in teachers' class contact time is filled by specialist provision. The frequency with which parents mention the headteacher/depute taking the class backs up statements from primary headteachers to similar effect. It is interesting that some parents – both individuals and school respondents - mention classroom assistants sometimes taking the class.

Comments make it clear that parents are happy when specialists fill the gap.

• I do not have a problem with specialist teachers.
• Happy with teaching approach and utilising skills for subjects such as science and art by teachers who excel in these subjects.
• The two-class teacher situation comes in for a more mixed response, with positive comments such as:
• …when my son's class has had their second teacher, it has been a great success. The main teacher and second teacher have good communication and the lessons compliment each other.

However, not everyone is so happy:

• My daughter only has her class teacher for 2.5 days a week as it is without having it cut! She has a stand-in the rest of the week already and I do not want this increased.
• It is also clear that whilst parents may be aware of changes, they are not always so certain of the reason for the changes and have to rely on that often unreliable messenger, their child, for the information.
• …(my son) is fully aware that at these times she (the teacher) is “doing other work in school” or in meetings.
• Although a “permanent” supply teacher takes the class, my daughter says that they sometimes do a bit of work but mostly sit and chat.
• I am aware that supply teachers cover sometimes; this may be because the teacher is still under supervision and not because of the McCrone agreement.

And again, there is the plea to be kept informed:

• …it would be helpful to know when the class is being taken by another teacher if it is on a regular basis.

And also concern about the outcome of headteachers and deputes teaching more.

We are very concerned about management being unavailable due to teaching much more….Parents/visitors are now finding it much more difficult to get appointments and when they do, not for as long as they should be.

Question 3

This question looked at changes that would be introduced in the coming year. We asked parents if they had been told what would happen and, if so, what this would be. Ignorance was the overriding theme. Of secondary respondents, 69% did not know what changes there would be in the future. However, the 31% who had been told, offered the following options:

• Changes to school hours

• Changes to the timetable e.g. a cut in the number of lessons per day from 8 to 6

• Anticipated problems with absence cover and problems providing supervision

• Distance learning packages replacing small Advanced Higher classes

• An increase in the number of bi-level classes in S5 and S6.

With the primary sector, ignorance was again the dominant theme with 86% of primary school respondents and 86% of primary individuals saying that they did not know what would happen next year. Those who did know and commented, were evenly divided between those who said that there would be more specialist teachers, in one case organised on a cluster basis, and those who said that there would be a second class teacher. In some cases it would seem that headteachers were still in the dark and awaiting confirmation of staffing, whilst one respondent said that school hours would be cut.

Question 4

Finally parents were asked if they were aware of any cuts to the number/frequency of parent-teacher evenings. Such changes would not have been a consequence in the cut in teachers' class contact time, but might have resulted from overall changes to teachers' weekly hours. In fact only a handful of people reported noticing any change: 2% of primary school respondents, 10% of secondary school respondents and 11% of primary individual respondents. Supplementary comments made it clear that whilst some people reported changes in frequency or timing, they were less certain as to the reason. Three primary respondents said that the cut from two to one parent-teacher evening was due to the introduction of formative assessment and personal learning plans. In the secondary sector it would seem that changes are more about timing than frequency i.e. parent-teacher meetings now take place between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. rather than in the evening.

Conclusion

We were surprised by the level of response to this questionnaire and by the obvious anger expressed by parents in their comments. They were mostly angry that they had been told nothing about the cut in teachers' contact hours even though this had a direct impact on their child's school experience. Whilst those who had an active involvement in the school were better informed, this was not seen as adequate by the majority of respondents. Of course, the irony is that whilst we were running the questionnaire SPTC staff were actively involved in the Parental Involvement Bill, which is based on the premise that parental involvement in children's education is a good thing. However, such parental involvement tends to be viewed as working only in one direction, with parents giving support to the school. There is little understanding that, for involvement to work properly, it has to be a two-way process; schools have to keep parents properly informed. Experience has taught us that there are “parent” issues – bullying, behaviour and enterprise education. Doubtless the McCrone Agreement was seen by the educational establishment as nothing to do with parents as it was “only” about teachers and their pay and conditions. However, when such matters have a direct effect on who is in front of the class and for how long, then such matters become parent issues. Schools and the educational establishment must become much more proactive in keeping parents informed if parental involvement is to work properly.

July 2006