5 min read

Teachers want more time for lesson planning, not less.

Last week, the NSW Department of Education released the Quality Time Action Plan, intended to “simplify administrative practices in schools”. Having highlighted the concerning growth in administrative workload in schools in a report based on a survey of more than 18,000 teachers for the NSW Teachers Federation in 2018, we were excited to hear about this development. 

A way forward for reducing administrative workload?

The Plan provides a commitment to “freeing up time”, through a targeted “reduction of 40 hours of low-value administrative tasks per teacher per year”. Administrative work was the overriding concern for teachers in our workload survey, with more than 97% of teachers reporting an increase in administrative requirements in the five prior years. Further research shows that the heavy workload of teachers pre-pandemic was intensified by COVID19 in 2020. As researchers in the field and advocates for the important work of teachers, we find it encouraging to see tangible efforts made to address teacher workload.

According to the Plan, issues with administration are to be addressed through six “opportunity areas”: 1) curriculum resources and support, 2) assessment and reporting to parents and carers, 3) accreditation, 4) processes and support services, 5) extracurricular activities, and 6) data collection and analysis. Some of these areas, especially data collection and analysis, resonate with what we heard from teachers in our 2018 survey. And importantly, some of the actions in the Action Plan do seem to provide tangible reductions in the time teachers spend on this kind of work, such as automating data processing that was previously manual. 

Avoiding the narrowing of teachers’ work

But other target areas of the Plan were more surprising to us, particularly those around curriculum. The Plan acknowledges that “skilled programming and lesson planning are a critical part of teaching” – but also states that “this task can be quite time consuming”. It offers to improve “the accessibility and quality of teacher resources” to “save hours of time teachers previously used creating and searching for content”. We’re not the only ones who were surprised by this inclusion – we noted plenty of social media discussion from teachers about it last Friday after the plan was released to them. 

We don’t have access to all of the data upon which the Department is basing its Plan. Maybe there are teachers who have called for more assistance in programming and lesson planning. There is, to our knowledge, no published research suggesting that this is a problematic workload area for teachers, although it has been a noted challenge in relation to conversion to remote teaching during the pandemic. This Plan strategy does seem to be at odds with the findings of our survey that teachers’ most valued activity, the one that they saw as most important and necessary, was “planning and preparation of lessons”. Similarly, teachers reported wanting more time for “developing new units of work and/or teaching programs”. They did not want to do less of this kind of work, in contrast to what the Plan seems to propose. 

According to policy analyst and scholar Carol Bacchi, policy documents always serve to create or give shape to policy problems. That is, for Bacchi, any ‘solution’ given in a policy is actively constructing a particular kind of ‘problem’ to be addressed. So it’s interesting that the Plan constructs class preparation as part of the teacher workload ‘problem’. This suggests that the problem isn’t that teachers need more time to do their preparation, but that the way in which they have been preparing in the past has been inefficient, with the solution to instil a more centralised approach. While teachers may be appreciative of such resources, it’s not what they advocated in our survey, where the top recommended strategy was to reduce face-to-face teaching time to facilitate a closer focus on collaboration for planning, programming, assessing and reporting. Similarly, we note that the NSW Teachers Federation salaries and conditions campaign launched last week, ‘More Than Thanks’, is – along with higher salaries – calling for an increase in preparation time of two hours a week, to enable this kind of work. 

There are also other interesting framings of the teacher workload problem in the Plan. For example, the support around data collection and analysis seems to be mostly about ‘streamlining’ existing requirements rather than removing them. This tells us that the perceived problem is not the data itself but how it is collected and reported. 

Lesson planning is core to teachers’ work 

Given that the Action Plan’s intended focus is on ‘administration’, this makes us wonder what ‘administration’ in teaching is understood to include. What is considered ‘administration’ and therefore peripheral, and what is considered ‘teaching’ and therefore core? This is quite a high-stakes question. Because if we position some aspects of teachers’ work as simply ‘administration’, then we run the risk of sidelining work that teachers value as part of their professional identity, such as the creative and intellectual work of lesson planning. 

We are wary of any policy approach which re-purposes concerns over workload as an opportunity to control or limit the central pedagogical labour of teachers. Reforms which chip away at the core work of teachers, where both societal contribution and teacher satisfaction is most concentrated, run the risk of damaging the profession and the education system it carries.

This may not be what happens under the Quality Time Action Plan. But given recent concerns over the commercialisation of education data and resourcing, it is worth asking whether it would be the profession itself providing centralised programming and planning resources, or if this would be outsourced. 

Teachers’ voices matter: give your feedback 

There is an opportunity to provide feedback on the Action Plan. We encourage teachers – those who live these matters each and every day – to fill in the feedback form. Workload issues are as complex as they are important, and we heartily welcome the ongoing efforts of all stakeholders to effectively support the people who staff our schools. 

Rachel Wilson is Associate Professor at The Sydney School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She has expertise in educational assessment, research methods and programme evaluation, with broad interests across educational evidence, policy and practice. She is interested in system-level reform and has been involved in designing, implementing and researching many university and school education reforms. Rachel is on Twitter @RachelWilson100

Susan McGrath-Champ is Professor in the Work and Organisational Studies Discipline at the University of Sydney Business School, Australia. Her research includes the geographical aspects of the world of work, employment relations and international human resource management. Recent studies include those of school teachers’ work and working conditions.

Meghan Stacey is a former high school English and drama teacher and current lecturer in the School of Education at UNSW Sydney. Meghan’s primary research interests sit at the intersection of sociological theory, policy sociology and the experiences of those subject to systems of education. Meghan’s PhD was conferred in April 2018. Meghan is on Twitter @meghanrstacey

Mihajla Gavin is a lecturer in the Business School at the University of Technology Sydney, and has worked as a senior officer in the public sector in Australia across various workplace relations advisory, policy and project roles. Mihajla’s research is concerned with analysing the response of teacher unions to neoliberal education reform that has affected teachers’ conditions of work. Mihajla is on Twitter @Mihajla_Gavin

Scott Fitzgerald is an associate professor and discipline lead of the People, Culture and Organisations discipline group in the School of Management at Curtin University. Scott’s research presently covers two main areas: the changing nature of governance, professionalism and work in the education sector.

This article was originally published on EduResearch Matters. Read the original article.

The Quality Time Action Plan is described by the department of education as an approach intended to reduce and simplify administrative processes for teachers and provide them with more time for “high value tasks”.  It is here that I have a quibble with this document and its definition of playground duty or supervision at lunch and recess as a “non-teaching activity”. I see this definition as problematic and at odds with the important role teachers play on school playgrounds and the learning that takes place in this setting.

Teaching does not just happen in the classroom 

The playground is one of the most important places of learning, it is here that children and young people develop socially, physically and practice a degree of autonomy outside of the classroom. A learning that is as important as that which takes place indoors. The role of the teacher is far more than a provider of knowledge. Relationships are the heart of our work. The playground offers us a space to interact with our students, to observe them in a different light, learn about their interests, strengths and vulnerabilities- an understanding that is essential for building our professional knowledge and informing practice. 

Teachers on the playground have a role that goes beyond keeping children physically safe and opening yoghurt. It is here they can offer support to students as they negotiate new or challenging social and physical situations. The playground offers young people a place for autonomy and socialisation. It is here they practice important skills that contribute to their social competence, such as sharing, managing conflict, making friends and learning new skills. Teachers participate in this learning by ensuring students have appropriate equipment to play, such as balls, hoops and skipping ropes. They can make suggestions about how to communicate more effectively, self-regulate, take risks or de-escalate conflicts. 

In American schools, playground duty is provided by non-teaching staff, often a parent is paid to fulfil this role. In my experience this resulted in confusion as school rules were implemented inconsistently and according to the assumptions of the adult standing on the yard. I recall one officious parent banning children from trading pokemon cards for no apparent reason other than she did not like the game. Students had no idea when they could run, what they could play or often why they were in trouble. What happened on the playground often stayed on the playground and teachers remained unaware of the social dynamics and the impact they had on the children in the classroom.

Playing is learning 

The wording in the action plan denies the important role of teachers in supporting this learning. The playground is a valuable resource for students and teachers as it is the primary place for playing. Play, in its many variations in primary and secondary years, offers much more than a place for children to “let off steam”. Vital social and emotional learning happens when children play and interact on the playground, they develop their awareness of themselves, of others and their capacity for acting with responsibility and kindness. Teachers can model this for children, to facilitate play in the early years, and in the primary and secondary years, encourage social inclusion and give emotional support when needed; this can be as simple as putting on a band-aid to address complex matters such as bullying. The playground is the heart of the school community and a place for students and teachers to play and come together for the wellbeing of all. 

Our duty when schools reopen 

Studies show that student wellbeing should be the highest priority for schools when they re-open. For many students, learning from home has been a period marked by significant anxiety and social isolation. Reports show what our students missed most about school was playing with their friends and their teachers. Removing teachers from the playground takes away their opportunity to reconnect with their students, to be present with them as they return to school, to share their concerns and more importantly experience the joy of being together again. Surely this should be considered as “a high valued task”.

Olivia Karaolis teaches across the School of Education and Social Work at Sydney University. She completed her research at USYD after working in the United States in the field of Early Childhood Education and Special Education. Her focus has been on creating inclusive communities through the framework of the creative arts.

Main image: CC BY-SA 2.5, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6427507

This article was originally published on EduResearch Matters. Read the original article.

10 min read

Brendon Hyndman, Charles Sturt University

A newly published study in the journal PLoS ONE suggests spending time on screens is unlikely to be directly harmful to young children. The US study attracted global attention, as screen time has been commonly blamed for disrupting the healthy habits of our youth.

Headlines announced “Screens are not as dangerous as you think”, “Screens don’t really hurt kids”, “Kids are not harmed by long screen times”, “Potential benefits of digital screen time” and “Kids being glued to screens doesn’t cause anxiety”.

However, we still need to be wary of health consequences, despite the absence of strong links between screen time and children’s health. The researchers suggested screen time was not a direct cause of depression or anxiety and was linked to improved peer relations, but their findings came with caveats. The study involved almost 12,000 nine-to-ten-year-olds from 24 diverse sites across the United States.

Read more: Kids and their computers: Several hours a day of screen time is OK, study suggests

Why worry about screen time?

Young people are using screens more than ever. The average number of screen-based digital devices reported to be owned and used by children in Australia has reached 3.3 devices per child.

These devices include laptops, smart phones, televisions, tablets, gaming devices and family computers. Similar to many Western nations, children are estimated to be using a mobile device or watching television for 3-4 hours a day and exceeding health guidelines.

Surveys have found almost all high school students and two-thirds of primary school students own a screen-based device. Children are spending at least a third of their day staring at screens.

In Australia, teachers and parents have expressed concerns that the fast uptake of digital devices (including social media use) is having negative impacts on children’s physical activity and their ability to be empathetic and focus on learning tasks.

Read more: Children own around 3 digital devices on average, and few can spend a day without them

Most concerns relate to screen time being associated with depression, anxiety, self-esteem, social interactions and sleep quality.

With children using screens so much at an early age, establishing a causal link between screen time and health outcomes has become more important than ever. Increased screen use as a result of the pandemic has added urgency to this research.

What did this latest study investigate?

The US study investigated the relationship between screen time and children’s academic performance, sleep habits, peer relationships and mental health.

Parents completed a screen time questionnaire, a child behaviour checklist and anxiety statement scales (including sections on children internalising or externalising problems and attention). They reported on their child’s grades at school, their sleep quantity and quality, family income and race.

The children independently completed a 14-item screen time questionnaire about the different types of recreational media use on screens. They were also asked how many close friends they have.

The researchers did find small significant associations between children’s screen time and decreases in quality of sleep, attention, mental health and academic performance. These effects were not confirmed as directly caused by screen time.

Possible explanations for the weak links between screen time and negative health impacts include:

1. relying on parent reporting
2. the design of the screen time survey
3. social quality measurement.

Parent reporting has limitations

Most of the assessment relied on parents being able to report accurately on their children’s health behaviours. Surveys and questionnaires are often more reliably completed by the target participants, unless they are unable to do so (for example, due to illness).

It can be difficult for adults to properly identify children’s behaviours, and parents reporting on a child can lead to many inaccuracies or less sensitive data associations. For instance, it would be very difficult to report on a child’s sleep disruptions without using a digital measuring device.

Parents are also relying on how much they see their child, the depth and openness of their conversations, various family structures, shared interests and conversations with teachers.

Survey design matters too

It’s important that surveys are easily understood and suitable for the participants. At the ages of nine and ten, kids could still be grappling with the meaning of the different screen time aspects of the survey. They also might not yet fully understand their own behaviours or habits.

In the screen-time questionnaire, the maximum time category was four hours a day and above. This will not identify excessive use. An international study of almost 600,000 children found beyond four hours (for boys) and two hours (for girls) was harmful.

Future research also needs to consider important positive screen strategies such as eye protection, posture, role modelling and active screen games with physical health benefits.

Other major considerations include the different ways children engage with devices. For example, screen time can involve interactional, recreational or passive entertainment. Different devices also require different levels of screen intensity.

The different screen time intensities have varying levels of influence on children’s mental health, life satisfaction and interactions. Researchers strongly emphasise measuring the quality of screen time, rather than the quantity.

Read more: Children live online more than ever – we need better definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ screen time

How do you define close friends?

The social survey focused on how many close friends a child has. This will not always mean social quality. A child may think of all contacts on social media as close friends and may simply be interacting with more people when using their devices.

Because the study relied on a quantity criterion with the wording “close friends”, we can’t be sure screen time actually strengthened peer relations.

In addition, it is an early age to be measuring screen use as research shows non-sedentary behaviours (that is, physical activity) peak later in primary school. This is when children are most active, engage in less screen time and most enjoy outdoor play compared to later years of schooling.

Where to from here?

The study has laid a foundation to add further comparisons and evidence as the participants approach adulthood in the next decade. It reinforced the influence of socio-economic status (SES) on children’s health and identified key trends, with boys reporting more total screen time during weekdays and weekends than girls.

Parents and teachers still need to show caution with children’s screen time, as the study did find associations between screen time and a variety of negative impacts on kids’ health.

Even if the negative outcomes were not identified as major and screen time wasn’t established as the direct cause, a review of research suggests we are unable to rule out these associations.

Brendon Hyndman, Associate Dean (Research), Charles Sturt University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

5 min read

School psychologists and counsellors provide a critical service supporting students with learning and emotional needs. During COVID-19 restrictions, they had to change the way they provided this service.

Given that there have been seven international health crises over the past 20 years, COVID may not be the last one we face.

It’s important we learn from our experiences during COVID, to ensure we continue to support students’ learning and emotional wellbeing during possible future crises, including pandemics.

During COVID-related restrictions in 2020, we conducted a survey-based study across Australia to find out what school psychologists and counsellors did during this time, the innovations they employed, and how they overcame the challenges associated with delivering services during COVID lockdowns.

This is what we found.

1. Online support to students, parents and teachers

Almost all support to students, parents and teachers during this time was provided using video-conferencing or telehealth.

Pivoting to online services gave psychologists and counsellors more opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration, especially with allied health and other medical professionals.

Various online innovations were used to keep students connected, such as online activity clubs (Lego online, for example). To promote wellbeing, activities supporting mental health were offered, such as online mindfulness for groups of students.

School psychologists presented webinars to parents on child and parent wellbeing, and sent emails to discuss the welfare of both. Teachers were invited to complete wellbeing surveys, and school psychologists and counsellors used online check-ins to support them.

They offered teachers online activities to promote wellbeing and connectedness, such as a virtual wall to post positive stories, and virtual yoga.

Read more: The need for mental health education in Australian schools

Providing online services to students, parents and teachers meant psychologists needed access to the appropriate technology, school IT support, and professional development – the Australian Psychological Society (APS) regularly provides professional development in this area.

How they might engage younger children in online services was a training gap for many. The Parenting Research Centre (PRC) launched a tele-practice website that includes a range of evidence-based information and resources for practitioners working with children and families that may be of relevance.

Pivoting to online services also meant school psychologists needed to quickly identify which online programs had a strong evidence base, and for which student groups (that is, targeting children of different ages and presenting issues). Many school psychologists adapted existing programs for their own needs, and more research is needed to identify intervention components that are essential for positive outcomes.

2. Supporting at-risk students

Various initiatives were employed school-wide to identify and support at-risk students, including asking all students to complete daily wellbeing check-ins.

Other approaches included setting up peer-to-peer support systems, providing regular contact via email, telephone or video conferencing, and connecting students and their families with additional services and support in the community as needed.

Online self-referral forms, and supporting at-risk students to attend school were other strategies employed.

More systematically, psychologists worked with leadership teams, liaised regularly with year-level coordinators, developed clear policies for wellbeing teams to follow, and had clearly defined processes for the identification and management of at-risk students.

3. Psychometric assessments

Perhaps unsurprisingly, school psychologists indicated that during lockdowns they weren’t able to conduct the usual assessments, such as intelligence tests. These are important for funding purposes, and to organise appropriate learning accommodations.

Read more: Leading schools in lockdown: Compassion, community and communication

Face-to-face psychometric assessments were able to be conducted for a small number of at-risk students. However, where psychometric assessments couldn’t be carried out, psychologists offered students, their families and teachers additional strategies and support until face-to-face learning resumed.

4. Managing ethical issues involved with delivery

The psychologists reported it was important to address the ethical issues of online service delivery, including confidentiality, privacy and security. This concern was addressed through the development of consistent policies, procedures and practices. Many psychologists described the value of guidance provided by the APS and AHPR.

5. School leaders

School leadership was vital in communicating the importance of student, staff and parent wellbeing. Likewise, the encouragement of school leaders for their communities, including staff, to access psychological support.

6. Self-care

Psychologists noted the importance of their own self-care and support networks, acknowledging the impacts of COVID-19 on both personal and professional levels.

Psychology and counselling services that support young people’s mental health and wellbeing are critical to their learning success and long-term happiness. This is especially important during high-stress periods such as lockdowns and when returning to face-to-face learning.

COVID-19 lockdowns gave rise to innovative practices that have the potential to increase student access to services when schools return to face-to-face learning. Whether, and how, these practices continue in the long term remain to be seen.

This article was first published on Monash Lens. Read the original article