The close monitoring of schools and student achievement data in
the English education system is unlikely to be a one-way street
to “school improvement” due to the stress it causes teachers,
finds a new study by UCL researchers.
The working paper*, which is published today and
funded by the Nuffield Foundation, suggests that although
increasing accountability may bring about short-term improvements
in student performance, this could be counterproductive if it
reduces teacher supply in the long-term and leads to shortages of
high-quality teachers.
The researchers analysed data from the 2018 Teaching
and Learning International Survey (TALIS) of over 100,000
teachers from more than 40 countries. They found that England
sits towards the top of the ‘accountability’ scale and that high
levels of measurements of educational performance - such as
school assessments being used to make judgements about the
effectiveness of teachers, whether there are school league tables
and whether there are inspections of schools - could partly be
driving higher stress levels among teachers in
England.
For example, 68% of teachers in England report
feeling accountability-related stress, compared to a
cross-country average of around 45%.
Professor John Jerrim (UCL Institute of Education)
said: “Accountability is becoming increasingly common within
school-systems across the world yet many are concerned about the
impact it is having upon teachers’ workload and wellbeing and
whether this is turning people away from the teaching
profession.
“Teachers in countries such as New Zealand and the
United States with similar levels of school accountability
measures as England, were less likely to be stressed and we are
not sure why.
“The study therefore raises important questions about
the pros and cons of England’s current system of school
accountability. In particular, do we have the right balance
between quality assurance of schools and ensuring that this does
not stress teaching staff out?”
The study also considered whether teachers were more
likely to feel stressed about accountability if their colleagues
felt stressed by it and found that teachers were twice as likely
to say that they felt stressed by accountability if their
colleagues were also stressed by this part of their
job.
“In other words, there are some schools where the
stress caused by accountability is a particularly big problem
that needs to be addressed,” said Professor Jerrim.
The authors note there are
limitations to the study and the findings should be interpreted
carefully. The study used cross-sectional data and therefore can
only establish the presence (or absence) of a correlation, rather
than causation. There also could be issues of what being
‘stressed’ means to people in different countries. Overall they
say more longitudinal data on teachers is needed to monitor how
levels of stress and wellbeing change when teachers are promoted
or when school management changes.
Professor Jerrim added: “It is important that
school-leaders continue to use student performance data
appropriately, and do not make inappropriate inferences about it
capturing the “quality” or “performance” of any individual member
of staff.
“We also believe our findings highlight the need for
policy makers to recognise that increasing accountability within
the school system is unlikely to be a one-way street to ‘school
improvement.”
Notes to editors
* The paper School accountability and teacher stress.
International evidence from the OECD TALIS study is non
peer-reviewed and will be published on www.johnjerrim.com/papers on
Thursday 18 March and is under strict embargo until then.
