The Staff Development Outcomes Study

1. The Staff Development Outcomes Study Sara Bubb & Peter Earley s.bubb@ioe.ac.ukp.earley@ioe.ac.uk UCET, 2009

2. Staff development outcomes study – TDA funded How can staff development lead to improved outcomes for pupils and staff? Qualitative – 35 case studies – 25 high performing schools + 10 less successful. A third with high levels of deprivation. 485 people interviewed. Jan-July 08 Quantitative – 1612 questionnaires completed by support staff, teachers and senior team. Sep-Nov 08 http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/pdf/s/staff_development outcomes_study.pdf

3. Main Findings • There was a positive association between school outcomes and staff development.   • We found an association between the quality of staff development and levels of pupil deprivation. Schools with low FSM were best at developing staff and having a whole school impact. • Time, money and support were the barriers to staff development most frequently mentioned in questionnaire responses.

4. Consequences for pupils • Pupils in 10/35 schools felt that staff development was disruptive When our teacher is out it’s horrible: the classes behave badly and we don’t get any work done. I’m not sure training is a good idea. Support staff and sixth form teachers especially were concerned that their work was not covered. 16/35 schools covered SD well: It doesn’t really matter who teaches us because they know the plans.

5. Time • Time was perceived to be the greatest barrier to staff development and yet it was generally not being used well, especially that devoted to ‘training’ or ‘INSET’ days. • Just four out of ten senior staff and teachers said that their school used their development days as five whole days • It was a bigger issue in secondaries with only a fifth of secondary school respondents saying that all five days were used. • Some people felt strongly that it was important to use whole days, saying that ‘INSET days with all staff together are like gold dust’. • Many other people said that their schools converted different numbers of whole training days into twilight sessions or private study.

6. Twilights – pros & cons Pros Cons Staff are tired Some staff won’t attend Lose time with latecomers Too short to gain much benefit Hard to lead, hard to get external speakers Nothing special Few spare after school slots available • Frees up days for extra holiday • More frequent – little and often • Easier to organize • Easier to meet individual needs • Gets people together more often • Smaller groups

7. How a development day was spent We found that not all of a development day was spent on training and development. Only a third of senior staff and nearly four out of ten teachers reported that the whole of their most recent training day was used for this. One in eight teachers in secondary schools reported spending none of the last closure day on training and development.

8. Views of usefulness of development days in the last 12 months Senior staff Ts Support staff • Very useful 36 16 13 • Useful 57 57 45 • Of little use 6 24 24 • Waste of time 0 3 8 (Senior = 397; Teachers = 466; Support = 749)

9. Most useful days? Ones which gave: • ideas that could be used directly in the classroom, • provided opportunities to meet with others and discuss issues or • helped to build teamwork and ensure ‘everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet’. Special school staff felt that too much of their ‘development’ time was spent on necessary but routine refresher health and safety training. Critics suggested there was a need for them to focus more on training/development and less on administration.

10. Remodelling • Workload is a widespread concern in schools. Currently where training takes place during the busy school week, especially after a day’s teaching, it is likely to exacerbate not improve the situation. • Limiting staff to a 7-8 hour day in term time will be a challenge and involve a cultural change. • Staff development and training would not normally be expected to take place during the school day: it would be the exception not the norm.

11. A new model of the teachers’ year (Bubb & Earley, 2010) Present - 190 teaching days (10 hr days) - 0-5 INSET days Option 1 - 190 teaching days (7-8 hr days) - 5 INSET days Option 2 - 190 teaching days (7-8 hr days) - 10 INSET days All = 8 bank holidays & 104 days weekend Present - Holidays = 58-63 (some spent ill) Option 1 = 30 days holiday & 28 days for development Option 2 = 30 days holidays & 23 days for development

12. Discussion points • Do staff spend much more time on development activities in some schools than in others? Impact? • How can staff development take place without pupils’ education being disrupted? • How can schools make more effective time for staff development? • How can time be used outside of term time?