One in four teachers work more than 60 hours a week and many work in the evenings, despite successive government promises to reduce their hours, according to a new UCL-led study.
The paper, published today and funded by the Nuffield Foundation, is the first piece of research to look at data from more than 40,000 primary and secondary teachers in England collected between 1992 and 2017.
The findings show that teachers work around 47 hours per week on average during term-time. This includes the time they spend on marking, lesson planning and administration, with there being little change in this figure over time. In the summer term the average working week was nearer to 50 hours.
Additionally, teachers in England worked on average eight hours more a week compared to teachers in comparable industrialised OECD countries. For example, in 2018, while the average full-time secondary teacher in England worked 49 hours per week the OECD average was 41 hours. The equivalent figure for teachers in Finland was just 34 hours.
The study found that around 40% of teachers in England usually work in the evening, 10% usually work at the weekend. Full-time secondary teachers also said they spend almost as much time on management, administration, marking and lesson planning each week (20.1 hours) as they do actually teaching pupils (20.5 hours).
Lead author, Professor John Jerrim (UCL Institute of Education) said: "This is the first study to attempt to track the working hours of teachers over such a long period of time.
"Successive secretaries of state for education have made big commitments to teachers about their working hours - how they are determined to reduce the burden of unnecessary tasks and how they will monitor hours robustly.
"Our data show just how difficult it is to reduce teacher workload and working hours. It is early days in terms of judging the effectiveness of the policies put forward over the past year. We'd like to see much closer monitoring of teachers' working hours, so that the impact of policy can be assessed as soon as possible.
"Overall, bolder plans are needed by the Government to show they are serious about reducing working hours for teachers and bringing them into line with other countries."
Researchers based their analysis upon four data sources: the Labour Force Survey, the Teaching and Learning International Survey, the UK Time-Use diaries and information gathered from the Teacher-Tapp survey app.
Together, these allowed the researchers to compare the working hours of teachers in England to other countries and to investigate change in working hours over time. They were also able to explore how the working hours of teachers vary over the academic year and throughout a regular school day.
The paper highlights that the current methods used by the Government to collect data and working hours are not as reliable as they could be and should be reformed. Researchers believe response rates are low and the absence of diary method data collection means it adds little value over other routinely collected data sources.
Josh Hillman, Director of Education at the Nuffield Foundation, said: "Earlier this year the Government's teacher recruitment and retention strategy acknowledged the teacher supply crisis in England. This research adds to our understanding of this crisis by confirming that teachers are working persistently long hours. This has been the case for over two decades, despite a succession of policy announcements during this period.
"As previous Nuffield-funded work has shown, addressing teachers' working hours is key to the improvement of both teaching quality and supply. Taking a wider view of the health of teachers over the past 25 years, the next phase of the project will help us to gain an even better understanding of the teacher workforce."
Notes to editors
For more information or to speak to the researchers involved, please contact Mark Greaves, UCL Media Relations. T: +44 (0)20 7679 9041, E: firstname.lastname@example.org.
"New evidence on teacher workload in England. An empirical analysis of four datasets" is the latest working paper to be published by the UCL IOE's Department of Quantitative Social Science (QSS). It will be available at http://johnjerrim.
About The UCL Institute of Education
The UCL Institute of Education is a world-leading centre for research and teaching in education and social science, ranked number one for education worldwide in the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 QS World University Rankings. It was awarded the Queen's Anniversary Prize in 2016. In 2014, the IOE secured 'outstanding' grades from Ofsted on every criterion for its initial teacher training, across primary, secondary and further education programmes. In the most recent Research Excellence Framework assessment of university research, the IOE was top for 'research power' (GPA multiplied by the size of the entry) in education. Founded in 1902, the Institute currently has more than 8,000 students and 800 staff. In December 2014 it became a single-faculty school of UCL, called the UCL Institute of Education. http://www.
UCL was founded in 1826. We were the first English university established after Oxford and Cambridge, the first to open up university education to those previously excluded from it, and the first to provide systematic teaching of law, architecture and medicine.
We are among the world's top universities, as reflected by performance in a range of international rankings and tables, and are committed to changing the world for the better.
Our community of over 41,500 students from 150 countries and over 12,500 staff pursues academic excellence, breaks boundaries and makes a positive impact on real world problems.
The Nuffield Foundation
The Nuffield Foundation is an independent charitable trust with a mission to advance social well-being. It funds research that informs social policy, primarily in Education, Welfare, and Justice. It also funds student programmes that provide opportunities for young people to develop skills in quantitative and scientific methods. The Nuffield Foundation is the founder and co-funder of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Ada Lovelace Institute. The Foundation has funded this project, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. Visit http://www.