Teacher Workload Research Report 2024: Main Report

Full text

Teacher
Workload
Research
Report 2024
Authors:
Moira Hulme, Gary Beauchamp,
Je Wood and Carole Bignell

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5
2 Background - teacher workload in context ................................................................... 6
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Teachers’ working time ............................................................................................ 6
2.3 Teacher and support staff numbers ......................................................................... 8
2.4 Professional capacity ............................................................................................... 9
2.5 Diverse learner needs .............................................................................................. 9
2.6 Behaviour ............................................................................................................... 10
2.7 Unproductive workload ........................................................................................... 11
2.8 Summary ................................................................................................................ 11
3 Research literature – scoping review ......................................................................... 13
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13
3.2 Approaches to workload research .......................................................................... 13
3.3 Workload intensification & time poverty ................................................................. 14
3.4 Summary ................................................................................................................ 15
4 Research approach .................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Methods ................................................................................................................. 16
4.2 Sample ................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Analysis .................................................................................................................. 18
4.4 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 18
5 Findings ...................................................................................................................... 19
5.1 Work within contracted hours ................................................................................. 19
5.1.1 Face-to-face teaching activities ...................................................................... 20
5.1.2 Preparation and Administration ...................................................................... 23
5.1.3 Student wellbeing responsibilities .................................................................. 29
5.1.4 Other activities outside class contact ............................................................. 31
5.2 Working time outside contracted hours .................................................................. 33
5.2.1 Morning and evening ...................................................................................... 34
5.2.2 Weekend ........................................................................................................ 37
5.3 Teacher responses to perceived stress scale ........................................................ 41
5.4 Job satisfaction & career intentions ....................................................................... 42
6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 45
Appendix 1: Participant characteristics .................................................................................. 49
Appendix 2: Time use diary & survey .................................................................................... 55
Appendix 3: Interview topic guide .......................................................................................... 79
References ............................................................................................................................. 80
Technical Annex .................................................................................................................... 87

2
List of tables
Table 1: Number of hours spent on overall face-to-face teaching. ....................................... 20
Table 2: Pairwise comparison on overall face-to-face contact hours differences ................. 20
Table 3: Number of hours spent on overall preparation and admin tasks within contracted
time ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 4: Pairwise comparison on overall preparation contact hours differences .................. 25
Table 5: Number of hours spent on wellbeing tasks overall within contract time. ................. 29
Table 6: Pairwise comparison on overall wellbeing contact hours differences ..................... 29
Table 7: Activities outside lessons by role. ........................................................................... 31
Table 8: Pairwise comparison on overall activities outside school contact hours differences
.............................................................................................................................................. 32
Table 9: Percentage of total number of hours spent in the morning & evening outside
contracted hours. .................................................................................................................. 34
Table 10: Overall number of hours spent in the weekend outside contracted hours. ........... 37
Table 11: Regression model Perceived Stress ..................................................................... 42
Table 12: Correlations between the number of hours spent on different tasks and job
satisfaction ............................................................................................................................ 42
Table 13: Total number of survey respondents by school position. ...................................... 50
Table 14: Survey respondents by sector .............................................................................. 50
Table 15: Previous experience: number of schools .............................................................. 51
Table 16: Primary teacher respondents by year group ......................................................... 51
Table 17: Secondary respondents by subject(s) taught ........................................................ 52
Table 18: Location of school settings of survey respondents ............................................... 52
Table 19: Survey respondents by local authority .................................................................. 53
Table 20: Interview sample by role and sector. .................................................................... 54
Table 21: Number of hours spent on overall face-to-face teaching for collapsed positions. 87
Table 22: Pairwise comparison on overall face-to-face contact hours differences collapsed
categories ............................................................................................................................. 87
Table 23: Number of hours spent on overall preparation and admin tasks within contracted
hours by collapsed position ................................................................................................... 87
Table 24: Pairwise comparison on overall preparation contact hours differences by collapsed
position .................................................................................................................................. 87
Table 25: Number of hours spent on overall wellbeing contract hours by collapsed position88
Table 26: Pairwise comparison on overall wellbeing contract hours by collapsed position .. 88
Table 27: Number of hours spent on other activities outside class contact by collapsed
position. ................................................................................................................................. 88
Table 28: Pairwise comparison on overall other activities contact hours differences ........... 88
Table 29: Mean, median and standard deviation values for overtime working by contract .. 96
Table 30: Predictors of year long workload. .......................................................................... 97
Table 31: Pairwise comparison on overall face-to-face contact hours differences, restricted
.............................................................................................................................................. 97
Table 32: Pairwise comparison on overall preparation contact hours differences, restricted.
.............................................................................................................................................. 98
Table 33: Pairwise comparison on overall wellbeing contact hours differences, restricted .. 98
Table 34: Pairwise comparison on overall activities outside class-contact hours differences,
restricted ............................................................................................................................... 98
Table 35: Regression model Perceived Stress ..................................................................... 99

3
List of figures
Figure 1: The research process ............................................................................................ 17
Figure 2: Number of hours face-to-face teaching activity spent by category and teacher role
.............................................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 3: Percentage of time spent in face-to-face teaching by category and role ............... 22
Figure 4: Number of hours on preparation & administration outside class activity by category
& role ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 5: Percentage time on preparation & administration outside class by category & role
.............................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 6: Number of hours spent on pupil wellbeing by category and role ........................... 30
Figure 7: Percentage of hours spent on pupil wellbeing by category and role ..................... 30
Figure 8: Percentage time spent on pupil wellbeing activities by sector ............................... 31
Figure 9: Percentage of activity outside class contact by role .............................................. 32
Figure 10: Mean values for the number of hours worked in mornings and evenings ........... 35
Figure 11: Mean number of hours for mornings & evenings by time use category and role 36
Figure 12: Mean number of hours worked beyond contracted hours at the weekend .......... 38
Figure 13: Mean hours spent at weekend by category and teacher role. ............................. 39
Figure 14: Mean age of survey participants by gender. ........................................................ 49
Figure 15: Mean age of survey participants by ethnicity. ...................................................... 49
Figure 16: Median values for hours worked outside contracted hours during the working
week ...................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 17: Mean value for hours worked outside contracted hours during the working week
.............................................................................................................................................. 89
Figure 18: Median number of hours worked at the weekend ................................................ 90
Figure 19: Mean number of hours worked at the weekend ................................................... 90
Figure 20: Percentage hours spent on tasks in the morning and evening outside contracted
hours by category and sector. ............................................................................................... 91
Figure 21: Percentage hours spent on tasks at weekend outside contracted hours by
category and sector .............................................................................................................. 92
Figure 22: Percentage hours spent on tasks in the morning and evening outside contracted
hours by category and contract type ..................................................................................... 94
Figure 23: Percentage hours spent on tasks in the weekend outside contracted hours by
category and contract type. ................................................................................................... 95

4
Acknowledgements
The research team would like to thank the teachers who gave their time to complete the time
use diary and survey, and especially those who elected to participate in follow-up interviews.
Your contribution has enabled a greater understanding of the working hours of teachers in
Scotland in 2024 and the drivers of time use. We would also like to thank the teachers who
provided feedback in the design stage of the online instrument and the Research Advisory
Group at the Educational Institute of Scotland.
Acronyms and abbreviations
ASL Additional support for learning
ASN Additional support needs
CfE Curriculum for Excellence
CPD Continuing professional development
EBSNA Emotionally based school non-attendance
EIS Educational Institute of Scotland
FTE Full time equivalent
GTCS General Teaching Council for Scotland
IT Information technology
ITE Initial Teacher Education
LA Local authority
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PGDE Postgraduate diploma in education
PT Principal teacher
SLT Senior leadership team
SNCT Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers
SNP Scottish National Party
TSF Teaching Scotland’s Future
How to cite: Hulme, M., Beauchamp, G., Wood, J. & Bignell, C. (2024) Teacher Workload
Research Report. School of Education and Social Sciences, University of the West of
Scotland. ISBN 978-1-903978-76-4 (print) ISBN 978-1-903978-77-1 (digital)

5
1 Introduction
This report presents the findings of independent research on teacher workload in Scotland. It
was commissioned by the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), the largest teacher trade
union in Scotland, which represents over 80% of all teachers across nursery, primary and
secondary education. The research fulfils a resolution adopted at the 2022 EIS Annual
General Meeting to contract ‘independent research that considers the workload of teachers,
the extra hours they work beyond their contractual hours as a consequence of their workload,
and the main reasons for the failure to achieve a 35-hour working week for teachers’.
The 35-hour working week for teachers in Scotland’s schools should consist of 22.5 hours
class contact time, plus 7.5 hours preparation and correction (SNCT, 2007). The remaining
five hours are set aside for locally negotiated collegiate activities. It is intended that the
individual and collective work of teachers should be capable of being undertaken within the
35-hour working week. This research examines to what extent teachers are working above
the contracted 35 hours, whether they are undertaking activities out with the stipulated range
of duties for teachers, the key influences that shape teachers’ time use, and the impact of this
on the profession.
Following a competitive tendering process, a consortium from the University of the West of
Scotland, Birmingham City University and Cardiff Metropolitan University was appointed to
undertake this study. An EIS Steering Group and two teacher panels advised the research
team. The research was conducted between January and April 2024.
A sequential mixed-method design using an online time use diary and semi-structured
individual interviews was deployed to the address the following research questions:
• What are the main activities that constitute teacher workload?
• What is the balance of this workload over the working week?
• What extra hours do teachers work beyond their contractual hours?
• Where do workload demands come from, out with class contact time?
• What are the main reasons for failure to achieve a 35-hour working week for
teachers?
The report is structured in five sections. The first section places teacher workload in context
through an overview of the policy background in Scotland. The second section presents a
concise overview of international research on teacher workload: approaches, key findings and
knowledge gaps. This review helped to inform the design of the research instruments. The
third section outlines the methodological approach and analysis strategy used in the study.
The fourth section presents key findings from analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data.
The final section discusses the findings in relation current policy and extant research.
Appendices contain a detailed breakdown of teacher characteristics and project
documentation. A Technical Annex provides additional data tables and more detailed results.

6
2 Background - teacher workload in context
Key points summary
• A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century (SEED, 2001) and Teaching Scotland’s
Future (Donaldson, 2011) set out a progressive model of extended professionalism
for teachers in Scotland.
• The professional capacity of teachers to shape educational change is connected to
teachers’ conditions of service. Opportunities for teachers to undertake continuing
professional development (CPD) to develop their professional skills is connected to
workload.
• Workload is affected by teacher and support staff numbers. There has been a slight
decrease in the total number of schoolteachers in Scotland between 2022 and 2023.
Recruitment to secondary Initial Teacher Education programmes has fallen annually
from 2020-21.
• Between 2010 and 2023, the proportion of pupils with an identified additional support
need rose from 10% of all pupils (69,587 individuals) to 37% (259,036 individuals)
(Pupil Census, 2023). Over the same period, the number of ASN teachers in
Scotland fell from 3,524 to 2,898. Average spending per pupil on additional support
for learning (ASL) by local authorities fell from £5,698 in 2012/13 to £3,764 in
2022/23, which represents a 33.9% drop.
• Teachers report a decline in pupil behaviour and an increase in classroom
disengagement behaviours, and low level and serious disruptive behaviours (BISSR,
2023; EIS, 2023a).
• Several reports draw attention to the need to simplify the curriculum, streamline
guidance for teachers, and tackle unnecessary bureaucracy. These actions are
needed to create sufficient time and space in teachers’ working week for curriculum
planning, monitoring achievement and moderation of assessment outcomes.
• Reports identify adequate support for teachers as integral to the future success of
curriculum, qualifications and assessment reform. This includes ‘additional, dedicated
and ring-fenced time for all teachers … to lead, plan and support Curriculum for
Excellence at the school level' (OECD, 2021, p.125).
• The 2021 Manifesto pledge to recruit 3,500 additional teachers and classroom
assistants and reduce teachers' contact time by an hour and a half per week is yet to
be accomplished.
2.1 Introduction
How teachers use their time is influenced by teachers’ conditions of service and the model of
professionalism that underpins their work. This section of the 2024 Teacher Workload report
outlines key developments in advancing professionalism in teaching in Scotland in regard to
working time and professional growth and reflects on progress towards these laudable aims.
It addresses the influences on teachers’ time use in terms of the relationship between teacher
and support staff numbers and the escalating job demands that are made of teachers. These
include professional capacity to shape the curriculum, and to address diverse needs through
personalised planning that promotes learner engagement and positive behaviour.
Consideration is also afforded to the negative impact of unnecessary bureaucracy, or
‘unproductive’ workload, on teachers’ working lives.
2.2 Teachers’ working time
A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century (SEED, 2001) did much to enhance the
professional status of teaching in Scotland. The Agreement sought to enhance teacher

7
autonomy and professional responsibility so that teachers might focus on leading learning.
Outcomes included improved pay and conditions for Scotland’s teachers, a new career
structure (including the introduction of chartered teacher status and principal teacher (PT)
posts in primaries), a structured system of teacher induction and a national framework for
continuing professional development (CPD).
In relation to working hours, this landmark agreement introduced:
• A 35-hour working week for teachers in Scotland from August 2001 (with pro rata
arrangements for teachers on part-time contracts).
• Maximum class-contact time of 22.5 hours a week across primary, secondary and
special school sectors from 2006 (and 18.5 hours for teachers on the national Teacher
Induction Scheme).
• 7.5 hours personal allowance for preparation and correction, the remaining contractual
time to be agreed at school-level.
• An entitlement to 35 hours a year of CPD linked to an annual approved CPD plan.
• Specification of Administrative and Other Non-Teaching Tasks that should ‘not be
routinely carried out by teachers’ (Annex E, pp.32-33)1 and the creation of 3,500
additional support staff posts to remove non-teaching duties (including bursar,
administrative and ICT support, and classroom assistants in secondary schools).
A decade later, the Donaldson review of teacher education in Scotland from Initial Teacher
Education (ITE) to headship, Teaching Scotland’s Future (TSF) acknowledged the important
contribution of the Teachers’ Agreement in laying the foundations for ‘twenty-first century
professionalism’ (Donaldson 2011, p.4). The Donaldson Report (2011) noted that the most
successful education systems, ‘invest in developing their teachers as reflective, accomplished
and enquiring professionals who have the capacity to engage fully with the complexities of
education and to be key actors in shaping and leading educational change’ (p.4).The fifty
recommendations contained within TSF were intended ‘to build the professional capacity of
our teachers and ultimately to improve the learning of the young people of Scotland’ (p.iii).
The Scottish Government (2011) accepted the TSF recommendations in full, partly or in
principle. These influential reports acknowledge the interrelationship between conditions of
service, professional capacity, and the quality of education in Scotland’s publicly funded
schools. Significantly, they acknowledge the imperative of investment in teacher development
to the realisation of curriculum goals and improved outcomes.
Progress towards enhancing the time and space available for teachers to concentrate on their
core role as educators, and to grow professionally over the career course, has been uneven.
Teacher Working Time Research conducted by the University of Glasgow in 2005-2006 found
main grade teachers routinely worked beyond the 35-hour working week and senior managers
worked well above a 35-hour week (Menter et al., 2006, p. 13). Five years after A Teaching
Profession for the 21st Century (SEED, 2001) the average number of hours worked across
roles was 45 hours per week (ibid, p.22). The development of career pathways in teaching,
through promotion or laterally through specialisms, has also faltered. The chartered teacher
scheme ended in 20122 and the movement to faculty structures in some in local authorities
reduced the number of subject PTs in secondary schools. The reduction in primary working
hours from 25 to 22.5 hours brought new contributions from specialist staff and new challenges
for senior leaders where supply cover was limited. Staff release in primaries was often covered
by visiting specialists in music, art, physical education, and information technology (IT). An
1 The activities listed in Annex E were subsequently removed following the McCormac (2011) review
of teacher conditions (p.16).
2 A move partly addressed by the subsequent (re-)introduction of ‘specialist roles in curricular,
pedagogical and policy delivery’ through the creation of the Lead Teacher post (Scottish Government,
2019, p. 4).

8
Audit Scotland (2006) report observed, ‘Reductions in class contact time (time spent in class)
are working well for classroom teachers but have contributed to an increased workload for
headteachers’ (p.16). Changes to supply teachers’ conditions in 2011, which were later
reversed, exacerbated emerging teacher shortages in some regions and subject areas.
Continuing workload pressures, the impact of multiple concurrent initiatives, and contracting
local authority resources were identified as key obstacles limiting opportunities for teachers to
pursue CPD and fulfil their role as leaders of learning (Scottish Government, 2016).
2.3 Teacher and support staff numbers
Balancing teacher supply and demand while maintaining educational standards and a
sustainable workload for teachers is challenging. Concern expressed about recruitment to
teaching before the Teachers’ Agreement (SEED, 2001) continues to be relevant. If
recruitment to Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programmes is an indicator of the status and
attractiveness of teaching as a career, there is recent cause for concern in the secondary
sector in Scotland. Recruitment to secondary Initial Teacher Education programmes has fallen
year-on-year from 2020. In 2023-24 50% of secondary postgraduate diploma in education
(PGDE) places were filled, compared with 61% in 2022-23, 85% 2021-22 and 92% in 2020-
21 (Seith, 2024). The total number of schoolteachers (primary, secondary, special and
centrally employed) decreased slightly by 128 across 17 local authorities between 2022 and
2023 (Scottish Government, 2023). Contraction of teacher numbers has been attributed to
reductions in some local authorities (LAs) of Scottish Attainment Challenge funding, the impact
of inflationary pressures on the Pupil Equity Fund and increased staffing costs. Budgetary
constraints on local authorities are contributing to employment insecurity among new
teachers, especially primary post-probationers. In 2022-23, the percentage of post-induction
scheme teachers in permanent full-time employment in schools in Scotland according to the
Teacher Census fell to 28.8%, the lowest level since 2012 (Scottish Government, 2023).
The Scottish National Party (SNP) 2021 Manifesto pledged to ‘recruit at least 3,500 additional
teachers and classroom assistants and reduce teachers’ contact time by an hour and a half
per week’ (p.62). This pledge was incorporated in the Scottish Government Programme for
Government 2021-22.
Over the course of the Parliament, we will provide funding to support the recruitment of at least
3,500 teachers and 500 classroom assistants - over and above the 1,400 recruited during the
pandemic - with further funding to enable councils to make these posts permanent. This will
give teachers the capacity to reduce contact time by an hour and a half a week which they can
use to prepare for lessons, raise standards and undertake professional development. (Scottish
Government, 2021, p.43).
Financial pressure on local authorities has increased in the ensuing years. Audit Scotland
(2024) notes that, 'Councils are facing an estimated cumulative budget gap of £780 million by
2026/27 which represents five per cent of councils’ revenue budget' (p.4). Consideration of
teacher numbers, and the implications of this for teacher workload, proceed in the context of
an expected decline in the school-age population over the next decade (Office for National
Statistics, 2023). Rather than expand teacher numbers to alleviate workload pressures, a
recent WPI Economics Report for the Scottish Government suggests holding teacher numbers
steady to enable a staggered reduction in class contact time to be achieved by 2028. If
implemented, this recommendation would prolong rather than alleviate higher workload.
Focussing on the implications from projected demographic changes – and in the context of
constrained public sector budgets – our modelling suggests that a constant, rather than
increasing, teacher stock could more closely match expected teacher resourcing needs over
the next decade. This could avoid sudden excesses in teacher numbers relative to resourcing
needs, while meeting the policy commitment to reduce contact time to 21 hours, albeit by 2028,
two years later than planned (Scottish Government 2024, p.4).

9
2.4 Professional capacity
The introduction of the 3-18 Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) moved the locus of curriculum
design into schools. The professional challenges this raised were not unrecognised. Research
by Baumfield et al. (2010) for the Scottish Government during the engagement year (prior to
full implementation) noted, ‘Uppermost among teachers' concerns was the need for time and
space to support appropriate school-level development opportunities’ (p.63). Devolving
responsibility for teacher CPD to the local level created an additional challenge, particularly
where local authorities were already facing staffing difficulties and a commitment to keep class
sizes low. More recent national reviews continue to show concern regarding professional
capacity and a need for conditions that better support teachers’ professional growth. The
Independent Panel on Career Pathways for Teachers (Scottish Government, 2019) noted that
‘All teachers should be supported in pursuit of agreed professional learning for their career
development with time and opportunity’ (p.6). The OECD (2021) Review of Curriculum for
Excellence highlighted a need to build curriculum capacity and strengthen support for
teachers, recommending, ‘provision of additional dedicated and ring-fenced time for all
teachers, for curriculum planning, for monitoring of student achievement and in support of
moderation of assessment outcomes’.3 A decade after the Donaldson Report, Kennedy and
Bell (2023) note, ‘we are no closer to a national system for supporting teacher learning in
schools’ (p.503). The General Teaching Council for Scotland’s (GTCS) submission to the Muir
review of Scottish education argued that the professional learning needs of both experienced
teachers and new teachers were not being met. The GTCS (2021) called for ‘a fundamental
rethink of teaching commitments to consider the time and space needed for... teacher learning’
(p.11). Workload was also cited in relation to concerns around moderation in the rapid review
of National Qualifications (Priestley et al., 2020).
The demands made of the teaching workforce in Scotland are likely to increase as key areas
of policy are under active development. Large-scale changes to assessment and
examinations (at senior secondary level) are signalled in the Hayward review of qualifications
and assessment, It’s Our Future (Hayward, 2023). The Muir report, which recommends
replacing SQA and Education Scotland, acknowledges calls from the profession for ‘a wider
range of quality learning and teaching materials produced centrally to reduce workload’ (Muir,
2022, p.19). The formal positioning of teachers as curriculum makers is only empowering in
the extent to which these enhanced responsibilities can be accomplished within the time and
resource available to those charged with their enactment.
2.5 Diverse learner needs
Inclusive education requires skilled teachers who are equipped to meet diverse learner needs.
This can include cultural diversity, linguistic diversity (including pupils for whom English is an
Additional Language), cognitive and neurodiversity (including highly able). An inclusive
learning environment attends to the needs of all pupils regardless of ethnic or linguistic
background, gender, socioeconomic status, or additional support needs arising from disability
and health, family circumstances, or social and emotional factors. Inclusive education requires
differentiated instruction, culturally responsive teaching and personalised planning that
attends to individual needs. As needs multiply, teachers require time and support to sustain
adaptive strategies.
The number of pupils in Scotland with an identified additional support need has increased
significantly due, in part, to improvements in recording. Escalating rates of ASN, and an
increase in complex needs, are also influenced by child poverty, increases in poor mental
3 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/bf624417-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/bf624417-
en&_csp_=51c450f180c5a8837f5b133c929c2dfe&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#

10
health, and social, emotional and behavioural issues that were evident before and deepened
with the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns (Scottish Parliament, 2024a). The
rate of emotionally based school non-attendance (EBSNA) has risen in the post pandemic
period (Scottish Parliament, 2024b, p.6). In 2010, 10% of all pupils (69,587 individuals) had
an identified additional support need.4 By 2023, this had risen to 37% of all pupils (259,036
individuals) (Pupil Census, 2023). Over the same period, the number of ASN teachers in
Scotland fell from 3,524 in 2010 to 2,898 in 2023 (Scottish Government, 2023). In 2013, each
ASN teacher was supporting 40 pupils with ASN, by 2023 this figure had risen to 89 pupils
(Scottish Children’s Services Coalition, 2024). While spending on ASL by local authorities
peaked in 2022-23 at £926m, average spending per pupil on additional support for learning
(ASL) by local authorities (primary, secondary and special education) has fallen from £5,698
in 2012/13 to £3,764 in 2022/23, which represents a 33.9% drop in spending per ASL-pupil
(Scottish Parliament, 2024c).5 The presumption to mainstream education requires teachers
and pupil support workers to enhance their professional skills to provide responsive and
targeted support for individual needs. This commitment in the context of declining access to
support for learning experts and classroom assistants increases teacher workload.
2.6 Behaviour
The ability to effectively organise and manage learning is a core professional skill of teachers.
The amount of time committed to managing pupil behaviour (within class and on school
premises) has changed over time. The importance of ‘positive and purposeful relationships to
provide and ensure a safe and secure environment for all learners’ is embedded in the
Standard for Full Registration for Teachers in Scotland (GTCS, 2021, p.5). The Behaviour in
Scottish Schools Research (BISSR) (Scottish Government, 2023) found most teachers
reported ‘generally good behaviour among most or all pupils in the classroom (65%) and
around the school (85%)’ (p.5). However, teachers reported a perceived decline in pupil
behaviour since the last survey in 2016 and since the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions from
March 2020. Teachers across sectors reported increases in classroom disengagement
behaviours, and low level and serious disruptive behaviours. Among research participants,
86% had encountered low level disruptive behaviour at least once a day in the last week, 67%
had encountered general verbal abuse, 59% physical aggression and 43% physical violence
between pupils in the classroom in the last week. Sixteen percent had experienced physical
aggression and 11% physical violence towards themselves or other staff in the classroom in
the last week (Scottish Government, 2023, pp.5-6). Survey returns from 875 EIS branches
also record significant increases in violence and aggression towards teachers with “82.7% of
branches responding that there are incidents of ‘violence and aggression’ every week. Over
72% of branches stated that the amount of ‘violence and aggression’ had grown in the last
four years – from levels before the Covid pandemic” (EIS, 2023a, p.3).6
Twelve per cent of primary and secondary teachers who participated in the BISSR (2023)
reported spending over three hours each week dealing with the same pupils who present
challenging behaviour; 38% of primary teachers and 48% of secondary teachers spent
between one and three hours dealing with the same pupils who present challenging behaviour
(p.160). A perceived decline in pupil behaviour was associated with deprivation, trauma,
4 Statistics on additional support needs include pupils in special schools and those in mainstream
schools who are assessed or declared disabled, or have a Co-ordinated Support Plan (CSP),
Individualised Education Programme (IEP), Child Plan or another type of support. Pupils may have
more than one type of ASN.
5 https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/questions-and-answers/question?ref=S6W-
26184
6 The EIS defines violence and aggression as 'any incident in which a person is abused, threatened or
assaulted in circumstances relating to their work. The term ‘violence and aggression’ goes beyond
violence and includes aggression which may be exhibited verbally, in writing, by gesture as well as by
physical means‘ (EIS, 2023a, p.2).

11
adverse childhood experiences, and unmet additional support needs. Reported negative
behaviour was more prevalent in urban schools, particularly primary schools. Most support
staff reported that they do not have sufficient time within their contracted hours to discuss
classroom planning or meet with colleagues/SLT/class teachers (p.168). The promotion of
positive behaviour strategies was broadly welcome, if properly resourced. The BISSR (2023)
notes that, ‘school staff were generally supportive of more nurturing and restorative
approaches to managing discipline, with the caveat that time and support were needed to
integrate these fully within the school’ (p.194).
2.7 Unproductive workload
Tackling unnecessary bureaucracy in teaching has been a persistent challenge. Unnecessary
bureaucracy is defined as, ‘excessive paperwork or electronic form-filling, leading to
unproductive workload for staff in schools’ (Education Scotland, 2016, p.2). The Curriculum
for Excellence Working Group on Tackling Bureaucracy (Scottish Government, 2013)
identified the following drivers of excessive bureaucracy: over-detailed planning processes,
assessment, tracking and reporting systems that are not fit-for-purpose, inflexible adoption of
practices rather than adapting to local circumstances, and excessive detail for auditing and
accountability purposes (p. 2). These were reiterated in the Scottish Government (2015)
Curriculum for Excellence Working Group on Tackling Bureaucracy – Follow Up Report and
the Education Scotland (2016) Review of local authorities’ actions to tackle unnecessary
bureaucracy and undue workload in schools, which again pointed to curriculum development
requirements associated with CfE, SQA arrangements in relation to national qualifications,
and the volume of guidance documents issued by national education agencies. Reducing
teacher workload, while working to close a persistent attainment gap, was a prominent feature
of the 2016 Education Delivery Plan (Scottish Government, 2016).
We will de-clutter the curriculum and strip away anything that creates unnecessary workload for
teachers and learners, and we will take forward a new programme of reducing workload in schools.
I will directly oversee this activity supported by a panel of teachers whose voice and experience will
inform what is taken forward. (John Swinney, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for
Education, 28 June 2016)7
Workload concerns remained a recurring theme within the records of the Teacher Panel from
2016 to 2023.8 The first meeting of the Teacher Panel, held on 10 August 2016, asserts its
key role in ‘providing views on de-cluttering, workload and bureaucracy’. The report of the
Education Governance review (Scottish Government 2017) noted that, ‘Too much
bureaucracy means that teachers and headteachers spend too much of their time on
paperwork and not enough time leading their schools and focusing on learning and teaching’
(p.16). The OECD (2021) report noted that successive waves of education initiatives with
accompanying ‘guidance’ challenge policy coherence and create competing pressures, giving
rise to an impression of ‘a busy policy landscape’ and ‘a system in constant reactive mode’
(p.105).
2.8 Summary
The above review provides an overview of the national policy context in Scotland in regard to
teacher workload over the last two decades. Successive policy documents have espoused a
progressive model of professionalism that places learners and learning at the centre. An
ambitious programme of change asks more of teachers at a time of contracting resource.
Some challenges pertain to particular geographic locations, school subjects, and school
organisational arrangements. In general, teachers’ work has been affected by a growing
7 https://www.gov.scot/news/education-delivery-plan-published/
8 https://www.gov.scot/groups/teacher-panel/

12
recognition of the need for personalised planning, an increase in identified ASN, a perceived
decline in pupil behaviour, a progressive reduction in specialist support and concomitant
increase in accountability processes. The following section moves beyond Scotland to present
a concise summary of international research on teacher workload. The concepts of workload
intensity and time poverty are introduced, and the impact of prolonged working hours on
teacher wellbeing is examined.

13
3 Research literature – scoping review
3.1 Introduction
This section of the report presents key findings from international research in comparable
jurisdictions on teacher workload, the drivers of teachers’ time use, and the impact of extended
working hours on wellbeing. Teacher wellbeing is defined as, ‘teachers’ responses to the
cognitive, emotional, health and social conditions pertaining to their work and their profession’
(Viac and Fraser, 2020, p.18).
3.2 Approaches to workload research
Most extant empirical research is based on cross-sectional surveys (self-report questionnaires
and interviews) and uses job demand-resource (JD-R) theory (Crawford et al., 2010).
Workload surveys commissioned by national professional associations reveal long working
hours (above fifty hours), increasing time pressure, and poor work-related wellbeing (EIS,
2023; INTO, 2022; EWC 2021; AITSL, 2021). Teacher workload research in English-speaking
education systems shows a marked divergence between actual working time and the time that
is ‘recognised, regulated or recorded’ by employers (Boeskens and Nusche, 2021, p. 10).
Working hours and the conditions that influence time use are strongly associated with job
satisfaction and occupational wellbeing, which in turn is related to turnover and attrition
(leaving rates) (Green, 2021; Sims and Jerrim, 2020; Perryman and Calvert, 2020; Adams et
al., 2023). In comparison with alternative graduate-entry professions, teaching offers lower
earnings potential and limited employment flexibility, including negligible access to hybrid
working (McLean et al., 2024).
The impact of working hours on wellbeing requires attention to individual, classroom and
organisational factors. Despite this, few studies address the significance of location context
(rural, urban) and school-level characteristics on teacher workload, or mediation effects (i.e.,
coping strategies) between groups (Kingsford-Smith, 2023; Collie and Mansfield, 2022; Hoppe
Key points summary
• The evidence base on teacher workload largely draws on data from cross-
sectional surveys. More research is needed that interrogates teacher working
time and teacher wellbeing by individual, classroom and organisational
factors.
• Workload research is typically informed by Job-Demands-Resources (JD-R)
theory, which focuses on the balance between the demands made of
individuals and the organisational support available to them.
• Research in English-speaking education systems routinely records a marked
divergence between teachers’ actual working time and the time that is
recognised by their employers.
• Recent workload research considers both the volume of working hours and
the relative demands of different components of workload.
• Data work is an increasing component of teachers’ time. Non-teaching tasks,
with indirect links to educational benefit for learners, are perceived as
contributing to workload burden.
• The teaching profession in the UK, North America and Australia has been
subject to workload intensification over recent years. Disruptive behaviour and
the need to respond to increasingly diverse learner needs are associated with
higher work-related stress, emotional exhaustion and burnout.

14
at al., 2023; Pan et al., 2023; Kreuzfeld and Seibt, 2022). Such nuance is necessary as the
work of teachers is complex and multifaceted.
An emerging body of research extends approaches to workload beyond a narrow focus on
working hours (i.e., volume) to consider the relative demands of different components of
workload, and perceptions of workload intensity (Jerrim and Sims, 2021). Workload
intensification is associated with an expansion of educators’ responsibilities accompanied by
a reduction in teacher autonomy and self-efficacy (Thomson, 2021; Sandmeier et al., 2022).
This intensification is a noted change in the extent, pace and pressure of teachers’ working
time (Stacey et al., 2022). Data from the UK Skills and Employment Survey 1992-2017 shows
that ‘compared to other professional workers and all other occupations, teachers work more
intensively during their work hours, and their work intensity has risen to unprecedented levels’
(Green, 2021, p.298).
3.3 Workload intensification & time poverty
Increased time pressures are associated with ‘time poverty’ i.e., ‘the relationship between (a)
the amount of work a teacher does, or perceives that they have to do, and (b) the intensity of
that work, which may be expressed as the number, complexity or stakes associated with
decisions that need to be made over a given time period’ (Creagh et al, 2023, p. 16). Teachers’
‘time poverty’, or workload manageability, has been identified as a critical factor affecting the
development of teachers, students, and schools (Liu et al., 2023). In an Australian context,
research by MacGrath et al. (2018) noted, ‘a ‘blanketing’ of administrative demands
encroaching on the work of teachers, impeding their capacity to focus on tasks directly related
to their teaching and to students’ learning’ (p.4). Data work is an increasing component of
teachers’ time and work-related availability has increased with greater use of information and
communication technology. Boundaries between work and private life have become more
permeable as teachers are increasingly deemed available outside conventional school hours
(Reid and Creed, 2021; Selwyn et al., 2017). The development of digital infrastructure has
accelerated processes of ‘datafication’ and the rise of the ‘platformised’ school (i.e., increased
use of software, apps and platforms for teaching and administration) (Pangrazio et al., 2023;
Selwyn 2022). Research has associated increased ‘dataveillance’ (constant monitoring) with
a diminution of professional agency and erosion of trust in teachers (Stacey et al., 2023; Lewis
and Hartong, 2021).
In-class pressures also contribute to workload intensification. Disruptive behaviour is positively
correlated with higher work stress and emotional exhaustion (Baeriswyl et al., 2021). Student
behaviour problems, combined with the need for differentiated instruction to address diverse
learning needs, are drivers of work-related stress, particularly in low-income urban settings
(Elliott et al., 2024). Outside class contact time, reporting and monitoring processes
associated with test-based accountability and a deepening concern for pupil wellbeing
(attendance, engagement, achievement, social and emotional health) extend working hours
and educator responsibilities (Jerrim and Sims, 2022; Skinner et al., 2021). The professional
values held by teachers means that is often difficult to place limits around working hours. As
the UK Education Support (2023) survey report notes, ‘It is not in the current culture of the
teaching profession to boundary the service offered. If children have a need, the reflexive
response is to respond again and again’ (p.16).
Growing awareness of the negative impact of higher workload on teacher wellbeing,
recruitment and retention has directed attention to school-level strategies to manage
workload. Research suggests teachers want to protect time for valued activities such as
planning and communication with parents/ carers and reduce time spent on administrative
activities through more efficient data management (Martin et al., 2023). Analysis of survey
data from teachers in England found that changes to marking and feedback polices produced
the greatest gains in workload reduction (Martin et al., 2023). Making time for traditional forms

15
of marking and feedback is strongly associated with workload stress and reduced teacher
wellbeing among teachers in five English speaking education systems (England, Australia,
Alberta-Canada, New Zealand, United States) (Jerrim and Sims, 2021). There is some
evidence that reducing extensive ‘after the school day’ marking with alternative forms of
feedback, including more direct feedback in the classroom, may improve student outcomes
(Churches et al., 2022).
Workload reduction initiatives have tended to place primary responsibility on educators, rather
than the institutional and policy context in which they work (Spicksley, 2022). For example,
Hoppe et al., (2023) associate ‘dispositional perfectionism’ (i.e., perfectionistic strivings and
concerns) with extended weekly working hours. Behaviours that extend and intensify working
hours, such as skipping breaks, working into evenings and on weekends are described as
‘self-endangering’ because they reduce recuperation time (op cit., p.298). In contrast, social-
ecological approaches emphasise the importance of context in shaping the capacity of
teachers to respond well to occupational stressors (Ainsworth and Oldfield, 2019; Oldfield and
Ainsworth, 2022). Emerging research investigates the interaction between teacher-level
(personal resources and interpersonal differences in coping strategies) and school-level
stressors (Collie and Mansfield, 2022; Nwoko et al., 2023). From this perspective, teacher
wellbeing is associated with perceived levels of organisational support and working time
quality (Viac and Fraser, 2020; OECD 2023; Churches and Fitzpatrick, 2023). At an
organisational level, UK research by Ostermeier et al. (2023) found strong evidence that job
security, autonomy and employee voice increase the subjective wellbeing of teachers.
Conversely, precarity and performativity pressures exert a negative influence. In Australia,
Stacey et al. (2021) report that many temporary teachers feel that they “must work harder than
permanent teachers in order to ‘prove themselves’ to school executive” (p.1). Research in
England has identified insufficient funding and staff capacity as key barriers to workload
reduction, and increased funding and higher levels of staffing as key enablers (Martin et al.,
2023, p.4).
3.4 Summary
In summary, research on teachers’ working hours and the factors that influence teachers’ time
use have drawn attention to the changing nature of teachers’ work and the impact of this on
their professional identity i.e., subjective understandings of what it means to be a teacher.
Teachers in comparable jurisdictions report reform fatigue, emotional exhaustion and burnout
(Lawrence et al., 2019; Heffernan et al., 2022) and a reduction in autonomy over the use of
time in face-to-face and non-teaching tasks (i.e., working time inflexibility, limited task
discretion). The fragmentation of tasks and escalation of routine administrative activity
impinges on the time available for relationship building and pastoral care that are core
components of caring professionalism (Beck, 2017). Examining the ‘juridification’ of education,
Murphy (2022) contends ‘the relational bonds that make teaching effective, as well as the
discretionary powers of teachers that underpin these bonds are in danger of being damaged’
(p.11). Non-teaching tasks, with fewer direct links to educational benefit for learners, are more
likely to be perceived as contributing to workload burden (Lawrence at et al., 2019), reducing
time available for core activities and professional learning (Jerrim and Sims, 2021; Mulholland
et al., 2017). Consequently, many teachers feel compelled to engage in a form of educational
‘triage’ as they contend with difficult choices and considerable ambiguity between what
constitutes high value core work and what might constitute ‘unnecessary’ workload (Stacey et
al., 2022, p.778).
The scoping review of research reported above informed the design and development of the
research instruments for this study. The literature supported initial development of categories
of time use and signalled the importance of time poverty and occupational stress. The
following section outlines the methodological approach adopted in investigating teacher
workload in Scotland.

16
4 Research approach
4.1 Methods
The main methods of data collection were an online time use diary completed retrospectively
for the calendar week 4th to 11th March 2024, followed by semi-structured remote interviews
with a demographically rich sample.
A link to a time use diary, generated by the QuestionPro online survey platform, was
distributed on 11 March 2024 via email to members of the Educational Institute of Scotland
(EIS) currently employed in schools in Scotland. Participants recorded the full range of work-
related activities undertaken over the preceding working days (including evenings) and
weekend (i.e., the hours they must work, the hours they do work, and the nature and drivers
of work-related activity). In addition, the survey components included a validated perceived
stress scale (Cohen et al., 1983), a job satisfaction scale (Mullis et al., 2020) and a teacher
time poverty scale (Liu et al., 2023). The research team worked closely with the EIS Steering
Group on an active recruitment strategy to raise the profile of the research with the teaching
workforce (e.g. via social media and email). Awareness raising was important because
response rates to teacher workload surveys can be low, typically around 10% (Allen at al.,
2023). Advance information about the survey and the designated week were circulated by the
EIS on 21 February 2024. An alert that the designated week had commenced was sent on 4
March, followed by reminders to complete returns before 18 March 2024.
Digital diaries were preferred to paper leave-behind diaries because they are cost-effective,
permit stronger communication with participants and make completion as easy as possible for
busy professionals (Sullivan et al., 2020). This method allowed for as close-to-real-time
registration of activities without placing an undue burden on participants (te Braak et al., 2023).
Online diaries show no more social desirability issues than offline surveys (Dodou, & de
Winter, 2014). A self-completed electronic diary was preferred to a telephone recall diary to
eliminate potential for interviewer bias (Allan et al., 2020). Comparison of the quality of data
obtained through time-use diaries and direct observation has shown that teachers can reliably
self-report their working time retrospectively (Vannest and Hagan-Burke, 2010).
The inclusion of the professional voice was important in the co-design and validation of the
survey instrument. Pre-coded activities in the time use diary were generated in consultation
with two volunteer teacher panels. Panel meetings moderated by two researchers were
convened online using Zoom video technology and did not exceed ninety minutes duration.
The first teacher panel was held on 25 January 2024 and involved 12 teachers from four local
authorities with a range of roles and varied length of experience. At this meeting, panel
members conducted accuracy checks on the teacher and school characteristics to be
collected, provided feedback on the proposed categories of time use, the layout and response
options, accessibility of language, anticipated completion times and timing of distribution for
optimal completion rates. A second teacher panel comprised of ten EIS local association
representatives was held online on 7 February 2024. At this meeting feedback was sought on
the content and format of the prototype online instrument, in addition to revisiting the clarity,
wording and relevance of the proposed activities, and the ease of completion for busy
teachers. The iterative involvement of teacher panels in the design and peer review process
reduced the risk of partial completion by respondents and validated the data collection
instrument. A complete copy of the final instrument can be found in Appendix 2.
The time-use diaries included a request for permission to contact for a follow-up interview.
Phase two of the research involved semi-structured remote interviews of 45 minutes duration
with teachers who volunteered to deepen the analysis beyond the number of working hours
to factors that explain composition of work patterns.

17
Figure 1: The research process
4.2 Sample
Time use diary
The time use diary and survey questions were completed by 1,834 teachers employed across
the 32 local authorities in Scotland. Of these 1518 (82%) respondents were female, 303
(16.5%) male, 5 non-binary and 8 preferred not to say. The mean age of participants was 40
years. The self-identified ethnic breakdown of the participants was 1794 White (97%), 22
mixed or multiple ethnicities, 11 Asian, 3 Black, and 4 others. Teachers from a BAME
background comprise 2% of the sample, which reflects the general teaching population in
Scotland (Scottish Government, 2023). Participants were employed across the full range of
roles from probationer to headteacher. The majority were main grade teachers (1440, 78.5%),
followed by principal teachers (273,14.9%). A smaller number of probationer teachers (37,
2.0%), chartered teachers (34, 1.9%), deputy headteachers (35,1.9%), headteachers (10,
0.5%) and lead teachers (5, 0.3%) completed the time use diary and survey questions. Most
respondents were employed in primary (971, 52.9%) or secondary schools (791, 43.1%), with
smaller returns from teachers working in special schools (58, 3.2%) and early years settings
(14, 0.8%). The distribution of primary teachers by year(s) (P1 – P7) and secondary teachers
by subject area(s) can be found in Appendix 1. Participants had a mean of 14 years experience
as a teacher, and most had taught in fewer than five schools. Most participants were employed
on full-time contracts (1474, 80%) with fewer on part-time contracts (360, 20%), which is
consistent with the general teaching population as indicated in Scottish School Census data
(Scottish Government, 2023). Of those employed on fractional part-time contracts, most were
either 0.6 FTE contracts (122) or 0.8 FTE contracts (112). Most respondents were employed
in urban locations (815, 44%) or small towns (772, 42%), with fewer working in rural locations
(202, 11%) or island communities (45, 2.5%).
Follow-up interview
When the survey closed on 17 March 2024, 550 teachers had given permission for further
contact (550 from 1834 respondents, 30%), 274 had provided details about their availability
and a 10% sample, 55 were invited to take part in an interview. Criterion-based sampling was
used for interviewee selection using teacher and school characteristics (Scottish Government,
2023). Each teacher who supplied details of availability was contacted twice to arrange an
appointment at a convenient time. Flexibility was offered in terms of the mode of remote
interview - telephone or online video call - to accommodate interviewee preference, availability
Analysis and
reporting
Data collection
stage 2:
Follow-up
interviews with
sub-sample
Data collection
stage 1:
Time use diary
Design &
preparation:
instrument
development &
dialogue with
teacher panels
Scoping review
of research
literature

18
and location. Between 18th March and 29th April, 40 interviews were conducted. The interview
sample comprised 28 female teachers (70%) and 12 males (30%) currently employed in
schools in 26 local authorities in Scotland. Most interviewees were employed in primary
schools (14, 35%) or secondary schools (20, 50%), with a much smaller number employed in
Early Years settings (2, 5%), Early and primary (2, 5%), primary and secondary (1, 2.5%) and
special education (1, 2.5%). The majority of interviewees were employed as main grade
teachers (23, 57%).
4.3 Analysis
Quantitative analysis was carried out using the statistical analysis software, SPSS28. All data
were checked to see if it met the assumptions for parametric testing and, where this was not
the case, non-parametric tests were utilised instead to restrict the chance of type 1 error (false
positive). Furthermore, multiple comparisons were corrected using Bonferroni correction to
again limit the risk of any type 1 error. All inferential tests use an alpha value of .05 for
significance. This means that if the value given for significance is .05 or less it can be assumed
that there is a significant effect with either a generalisable difference between two conditions
or with one factor able to predict another in the regression analysis. In simple terms, this
identified associations between questions which were not random and/or showed strong
relationship to each other.
Thematic analysis of full verbatim interview transcripts was supported by NVivo12 software.
A small sample of transcripts was coded independently by two researchers, who then met to
discuss appropriate codes and clarify inconsistencies. This process of cross-checking
informed the coding of the remainder of the transcripts. Extracts from these interviews are
used to supplement the survey results later in this report.
To reduce the risk of deductive disclosure (i.e., possible identification of interviewees), gender,
local authority and school type (urban, small town, rural) are removed from direct quotations
used in the report. Local authority has been replaced by the five geographical regions (i.e.,
International Territorial Levels) used by OECD member states for Scotland: Eastern Scotland,
Highlands and Islands, North Eastern Scotland, South Western Scotland, and Southern
Scotland.9
4.4 Limitations
There are a number of caveats that should be considered when interpreting the findings of
this study. The working patterns presented are based on self-report. Moreover, establishing a
typical week in teaching is not without challenge. Teachers’ work per week can vary
substantially over the academic year. Some activities are unevenly distributed over the school
year, such as administrative work or professional development. Random repeated allocation
of diary days to overcome the difficulty of identifying a ‘typical’ teaching week was not possible
within the timeframe for this research. The response rate to the survey is high (and the
participant profile is consistent with general teaching population in Scotland as recorded in the
Summary statistics for schools in Scotland 2023), but some of the subgroups are small e.g.
the proportion of returns from probationers, chartered teachers, and lead teachers (Appendix
1). The instrument was co-designed with a focus on class-committed teachers. School leaders
working patterns are less well represented in the time use diary and survey questions.
Teachers at different career stages may respond to workload stressors differently. Further
research is needed to interrogate time use data by individual and school-level characteristics.
9 https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/eurostat#scotland

19
5 Findings
5.1 Work within contracted hours
This section of the report presents findings reflecting the four categories of time use in the
diary within contracted hours:
• Face-to-face teaching activities
• Preparation and admin tasks
• Student wellbeing responsibilities
• Activities outside of lessons.
Each of these categories was exemplified in guidance preceding this question (see Table 1
Categories of Time Use in Appendix 1). In each category, respondents were first asked to
provide the number of hours they spent on the category, and then to break these hours down
as a percentage (to total 100%) against the provided exemplification. To ensure clarity and
provide consistency of responses, teachers were reminded in the survey that:
Full-time contracted working hours are 35 hours a week; with 22.5 hours of
teaching and additionally no less than a third of this figure allocated for
preparation & correction. All tasks that do not require a teacher to be on the
school premises can be undertaken at a time and place of the teacher’s own
choosing.
Respondents were reminded that this section of the survey addressed ‘work done within
your contractual 35 hours a week (or fraction thereof, if part-time)’.
Key summary points
• Teachers who were primarily classroom-based reported spending around two-
thirds (68%) of teaching time on learning interactions. Minor disruptions and
significant behavioural interruptions occupied between 14.7% - 28.60% of all
face-to-face teaching time for all roles in schools.
• Interviewees consistently reported greater use of teaching time to address low
level and serious disruptive behaviour, and administrative follow-up activities
outside lessons to report incidents and communicate with parents/ carers/
colleagues/ external agencies.
• Planning and preparing lessons and marking and feedback were the core tasks
that occupied most time for classroom-based teachers.
• Planning and preparation challenges were reported by interviewees teaching
composite classes, cross-phase teachers, teachers of technical subjects, and
subjects with just one teacher.
• Higher rates of pupil absence and intermittent attendance require additional
preparation to maintain learning for pupils who are away from the classroom in
other within-school provision, or at home.
• Teachers reported increased levels of additional support needs (ASN) from early
years to senior classes in high school.
• Across sectors and regions, main grade interviewees commented on the
challenges of completing data entry for tracking and monitoring and reporting
requirements within their contracted hours.

20
5.1.1 Face-to-face teaching activities
A Kruskal-Wallis analyses confirmed significant differences between position in school and
the amount of time, in hours, spent on the face-to-face teaching (χ2 (6, N = 1834) = 164.48, p
< .001). The mean number of hours for class-committed teachers ranged between 19-24
hours, with probationers reporting a mean of 20 hours (table 1).
Table 1: Number of hours spent on overall face-to-face teaching.
Median (Mean)
SD
Head
3.50 (4.40)
4.01
Deputy head
6.50 (9.01)
7.04
Principal
19.00 (18.59)
6.20
Lead
24.00 (22.64)
5.03
Chartered
22.50 (21.95)
5.34
Main grade
22.50 (21.32)
5.61
Probationer
20.00 (20.98)
6.14
Table 2: Pairwise comparison on overall face-to-face contact hours differences
Head
teacher
Deputy
head
Principal
Lead
Chartered
Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher
>.999
.002
.003
<.001
<.001
.001
Deputy Head
<.001
.003
<.001
<.001
<.001
Principal
>.999
.148
<.001
>.999
Lead
>.999
>.999
>.999
Chartered
>.999
>.999
Main grade
>.999
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)

21
Figure 2: Number of hours face-to-face teaching activity spent by category and teacher role
Note: Excluding those who reported more than 22.5 hours for face-to-face contact time did not change
the significance of the results (χ2 (6, N = 1365) = 210.31, p < .001) (see technical annex for full analysis).
Figure 3 provides details of the percentage of the above face-to-face class contact time
allocated to each category by position in school. In the target week, the highest mean
percentage across all school roles were spent on learning interactions, with only lead teachers
dropping below 60%10.
10 It should be noted that the high percentage of time for headteachers and deputies was a
percentage of 3.5-6.5 hours, compared to a percentage of 19-24 hours for other roles.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Probationer
Main grade teacher
Chartered teacher
Lead teacher
Principal teacher
Deputy headteacher
Headteacher
Mean number of hours
Current position at school
Face to face learning
Minor learning disruptions
Major learning disruptions
Managing resources

22
Figure 3: Percentage of time spent in face-to-face teaching by category and role
Teachers who were primarily classroom-based spent between 46 and 68% of teaching time
on learning interactions, with the remainder of time spent on behavioural interruptions and
managing resources. The second highest percentage of face-to-face teaching time for
probationer, main grade and principal teacher was ‘minor’ learning disruptions.’ Taken
together, minor disruptions and significant behavioural interruptions represented between
14.7% - 28.6% of class contact time for all roles in schools, with an even greater percentage
of time for deputy headteachers (47.08%).
Concern about disruptions and significant behavioural issues was echoed in interviewees
across regions, settings (early years, primary and secondary) and roles (main grade, principal
teachers). Interviewees reported an escalation in behaviour-related issues that contributed to
their workload in a number of ways. This entailed greater use of class contact time to address
low level and serious disruptive behaviour, time outside lessons to report incidents to
appropriate colleagues, meeting with senior staff to discuss incidents and how to respond,
contacting and meeting with parents and other professionals, including safeguarding.
Additionally, some teachers reported inconsistent application of behaviour policies or lack of
a whole school behaviour policy, which meant insufficient guidance on how to manage
incidents.
A minority reported that senior management in school failed to take their concerns seriously
(and viewed low level disruption as ‘trivial’), failing to acknowledge the cumulative impact on
staff of having to deal with a constant flow of disruption through each day over a period of
weeks or months. For example,
I don't have any down time in my classes, because they’re really large and there's a lot of
different behaviours to deal with all the time. If something kicks off in one class, I might not
get time to email or call about the situation until lunch or break because that's the first time

23
I’ve not had other things to deal with in the classroom. (Main grade secondary teacher, West
Central Scotland)
You're doing referrals for behaviour in your free periods, which means there isn’t enough time
for marking, planning, and reporting. If restorative conversations are going to be valuable, it's
not a two-minute chat. Those practices are good practices, but they're eating my time, adding
to your working day and leaving less time and space for prep. (Main grade secondary teacher,
Southern Scotland)
I spend the majority of my time dealing with either paperwork for referrals or having to deal with
behaviour. One child will kick off and I’m having to deal with that with no support and keep the
rest of the children safe and occupied. (Principal teacher, primary, Southern Scotland)
Staff absence as a result of challenging behaviour increases the workload of colleagues called
upon to cover classes, often at short notice:
People have left the school building part-way through the day simply to de-stress. They were
too upset and had to go home. I had a member of my department leave after a violent incident.
They weren't injured but had to go home, which bounces workload onto other people because
those classes need to be covered within a moment's notice. (Principal teacher, secondary,
Highlands and Islands)
A reported marked increase in referrals for behaviour created additional time pressure. This
was sometimes exacerbated by limited access to office phones during school hours. For
example, up to eleven primary teachers queuing to make calls to parents from two office
phones at the end of the school day, forcing staff to forgo lunch breaks to stay on top of
reporting. Another example reported was,
If there is an incident, then you can put a referral into SEEMiS that all the relevant people higher
up see and just sitting down and doing one of those takes between five and 10 minutes. And if
you've got several of those a day to do it's amazing how quickly that adds up. Because
behavioural incidents are going up, more and more children are then on behaviour target cards,
which you need to complete, and you need to feedback to their guidance staff about that. All
these things on their own seem very manageable but when you've got six or seven of those a
day to deal with, it’s another hour which needs to be taken from something else. (Main grade,
secondary, Highlands and Islands)
There's certainly a culture of fear of not passing things on. There is an increased social
pressure, as well as the professional pressure, to do it in a timely manner. So I will drop
whatever I need to in order to feel that I've done that as soon as I possibly can. And I worry that
the quality of my lessons isn't as immersive as it could be because these things do arise more
often. You think it's only gonna be two minutes to send an email to a pastoral care teacher, but
if you're having to think, right, who is that student’s pastoral care teacher, who is their head of
year, looking up details on the system, that is time you're taking time within the lesson, at break
time or lunchtime. (Main grade, secondary, West Central)
5.1.2 Preparation and Administration
In considering the amount of time spent within contracted hours on preparation and
administration, six categories were provided in the time use diary:
• Data recording, input and analysis
• Marking and feedback to pupils
• Writing reports
• Preparing Additional Support Plans
• Preparing for inspection
• Planning and preparing lessons

24
Figure 4: Number of hours on preparation & administration outside class activity by category & role
Figure 4 provides details of the percentage of time allocated to each category by position in
school. This shows that ‘planning and preparing lessons’ occupied most time for probationer
(the highest percentage of all roles), main grade, chartered and principal teachers, whereas
‘marking and feedback to pupils’ took most time for lead teachers and ‘data recording, input
and analysis’ took most time for deputies and particularly headteachers. Marking and
feedback was the second highest percentage of time for probationer, main grade and
chartered teachers. Preparing for inspection was the lowest category for all users within
contracted hours.
Table 3: Number of hours spent on overall preparation and admin tasks within contracted time
Median (Mean)
SD
Head
6.00 (9.90)
9.89
Deputy head
10.00 (14.39)
12.40
Principal
10.00 (11.49)
6.81
Lead
14.00 (12.80)
3.70
Chartered
8.75 (10.06)
8.79
Main grade
10.00 (10.15)
5.95
Probationer
12.00 (12.55)
5.87
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Probationer Main grade
teacher
Chartered
teacher
Lead teacher Principal
teacher
Deputy
headteacher
Headteacher
Mean number of hours
Current position at school
Data recording, input and analysis
Marking and feedback to pupils Writing reports
Preparing additional support plans Preparing for inspection
Planning and preparing lessons

25
Kruskal-Wallis analyses were carried out to examine whether there were significant
differences between those in different teacher positions and the amount of time, in hours, they
spent on preparation and administration tasks (χ2 (6, N = 1834) = 22.15, p = .001). Post-hoc
tests with a Bonferroni correction showed that principal teachers spent more hours on this
category than main grade teachers.
Table 4: Pairwise comparison on overall preparation contact hours differences
Headteacher
Deputy
head
Principal
Lead
Chartered
Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher
>.999
>.999
>.999
>.999
>.999
.839
Deputy
Head
>.999
>.999
>.999
>.999
>.999
Principal
>.999
>.999
.061
>.999
Lead
>.999
>.999
>.999
Chartered
>.999
.261
Main grade
.105
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)
Note: Limiting the number of hours spent on preparation to 35 hours did not change the
significance or the pattern of results on this test (χ2 (6, N = 1826) = 21.01, p = .002) (see
technical annex for full results).

26
Figure 5: Percentage time on preparation & administration outside class by category & role
In interviews, Principal teachers (PTs) reported less ability to control time use, particularly in
smaller schools where they are required to wear ‘multiple hats’ (for example PT Guidance and
sole subject teacher) and may also deputise for the senior leadership team (SLT). At the same
time, middle leaders and faculty heads sought to engage in processes of brokering teacher
workload and buffering workload demands for teachers in their teams. PTs in schools facing
recruitment challenges and insecure cover arrangements operated in constant responsive
modes, such as
Because I am in a promoted post there is the admin. associated which is never defined, so
can just expand. This means it's extremely hard to manage your time. The emergent things
that come up daily you can't just push to the side. I spend a lot of time dealing with parents,
recording incidents, trying to come up with strategies. That’s time that’s never factored into
your working time agreement. Because behavioural issues have really ramped up, it's tricky
to even focus on anything PT based, because you're so stretched. You're getting it from the
top and from your colleagues because they both think you should do something about it.
(Principal Teacher primary, Southern Scotland)
I work in quite a small school and often adopt a role above my role as principal teacher. That
can contribute to my workload, because I'm having to do two jobs with one job’s workload and
timescale. (Principal Teacher, primary, Eastern Scotland)
Planning was a challenge for teachers teaching across levels, for example, secondary teachers
teaching across six different year groups with five non-contact periods a week; teachers
employed in all-through schools, and primary teachers working with multi-composite classes,
sometimes at more than one school. Teachers reported difficulty in undertaking professional
learning, keeping their subject knowledge up-to-date, refreshing their approaches to curriculum
and assessment in line with national and regional policy guidance. Teachers of technical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Probationer Main grade
teacher
Chartered
teacher
Lead teacher Principal
teacher
Deputy
headteacher
Headteacher
Mean percentage for each category
Current position at school
Data recording, input and analysis
Marking and feedback to pupils
Writing reports
Preparing Additional Support Plans
Preparing for inspection
Planning and preparing lessons

27
subjects, and subjects with just one teacher, pointed to additional preparation time, often in the
face of contracting or no technician support. Reduced auxiliary support resulted in increased
workload for those teaching practical subjects.
A reported increase in diverse needs extended preparation time for all teachers, and particularly
early career teachers with less experience and continuing development needs. Higher rates of
pupil absence from school and intermittent attendance adds additional pressures to maintain
learning for pupils returning to class who have not engaged in learning while absent from school,
and preparing resources to maintain learning for pupils who are away from the classroom in
other within-school provision, or at home.
Teachers reported an increased level of need from early years to senior classes in high school.
Interviewees commented on the tensions between the work required to address increasing
levels of need within their classrooms and the resources and time available. Strategies of
teacher support through further training were interpreted by some as inconsistent with the
removal of in-class support. Teachers reported a growing sense of exposure to increasing need
with less time and material resources to meet such needs well. For example:
The raised level of need that the pupils are showing recently just overwhelms the time that's
available. It's the interpersonal workload too, the mental workload. You are expected to deal
with distressed young people who aren't prepared for learning, who aren't in a position to
learn, and help them to a point where they might do some work. And you're doing that for
most of your periods during the day. The mental intensity required has increased a lot. (Main
grade, secondary, Highland and islands)
Children are coming in much more with delays or autistic type tendencies and a significant
decline in speech and language skills. The support for learning teacher is often pulled from
pillar to post and then that falls on me. The children you would normally focus on with speech
and language are not receiving the support because you are more inclined to be supporting
children with these other delays and a wider range of needs. It's really challenging. (Early
Years Teacher, Eastern Scotland)
The authority is very good at giving us additional support needs training, but they're doing it
because they're cutting teachers. It seems a cynical move to make us do all this extra training
when they're pulling support left, right and center. (Main grade, secondary, Highlands and
islands)
We don't have enough money for young people who need extra support and are in
mainstream education just muddling along as best as they can. Without smaller class sizes,
more teachers and more learning support, the government is just putting plasters over a
gaping wound. (Main grade, secondary, West Central)
Across sectors and regions, main grade interviewees reported struggling to undertake
reporting requirements within their working hours. Reporting systems were described as
complex and multi-layered. Numerous teachers questioned the value of data and how (or
whether) it was subsequently used to support improvement action, in relation to the time
required for teachers to complete the task. Some teachers felt data entry demands were
excessive and indicated a lack of trust in teacher professionalism. While teachers
acknowledged the importance of tracking and monitoring of pupil progress, many felt the
systems to support this process were disjointed and not easy to navigate, adding to the time
required to perform tasks. Where efforts have been made to reduce tasks to numerical data
entry, teachers invested time in ensuring their choice of response for each young person was
valid and reliable. Others noted a lack of shared understanding across professionals and
parents on the meaning of data generated. The demands of reporting and the regularity with
which these demands were made throughout the school year, reduced teacher time and space
to catching up rather than forward planning and taking positive intervention action. For
numerous interviewees monitoring activity had become an end in itself rather than purposeful
activity undertaken to support an improvement strategy.

28
There's much higher scrutiny and that takes up time. You're filling out records for 25 children
against each individual not just benchmark, but skill and underpinning knowledge, not just
literacy and numeracy, but also for science, health and wellbeing, French, art and design.
This is really micromanaging not just children, but myself, my own professional judgment. I
would hope that I have very secure knowledge of the children in front of me, but I’m required
to produce a paper trail, to evidence on a bit of paper that that's where they are. I'm having to
duplicate workload by filling out paperwork, essentially bureaucracy’. (Main grade, primary,
Eastern Scotland)
Tracking and monitoring for kids you don't see in your class and especially senior phase
pupils, you have to contact guidance teachers and deputy heads. It's up to you to get on
record who's off track including attendance or misbehaving in class. You do your tracking and
monitoring at night at home, you cannot do that in class contact time. Your first, second and
third year, we are also expected to record those who are beyond expectations, who are doing
really well. And then especially those who are not on track, you enter in another place to say
why they're not in track. You’ve two layers to the one system. (Main grade, secondary,
Southern Scotland)
Tracking and monitoring has seemed to explode this year, in terms of the number of times we
have to input into the systems, and the number of times we have to check them from a
Principal Teacher perspective. This year, it has increased to four attainment reviews
throughout the year, which requires a massive amount of processing of data. My frustration is
that, at the end of it all, it doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know. We've written
our development plan, but there's no time to do any of it before we're back to reviewing it
again, and finding that we've done nothing (Principal Teacher, secondary, Highlands and
Islands).
Opinion was divided on the needs to streamline report writing processes to help make them
manageable for teachers while retaining a level of personalisation and accessibility that meant
the process was meaningful for families. Primary teachers who participated in interviews
reported spending five hours a week over five weeks on writing reports for parents. Secondary
teachers commented on the increasing frequency and level of detail required for reports. For
example, ‘interim’ reports that were indistinguishable from full reports in terms of the level of
detail required with respect to progress data and comments. Cross-phase teachers (working
with primary and secondary pupils) faced particular pressure, for example, one teacher
reported completing 166 reports each year. While acknowledging the value of developing
positive home school relationships, some teachers sought assurance of the effectiveness of
activities given the considerable time investment.
Reporting to parents and relationships with families is incredibly important and adds to
workload. We do parents' night, parents' meetings and then we write reports, we put things
online. But what actually works in building relationships with families? It's probably different
for every family and we need the time to do that well. (Probationer, primary, Southern
Scotland)
Reporting is important. For each year group we have a short report, which is a target grade
then numbers that reflect how we feel they're doing in terms of homework, behaviour and
effort. Parents really struggle to get to grips with what it all means, which means we're doing
something that isn't having an impact. I want to write reports that can help the child to really
excel. A couple of weeks ago, I had to write 53 reports. That's a lot of time when you treat
each one individually and make it really attuned to that individual. (Main grade, secondary,
Highlands and Islands)
We cannot stick to the Working Time Agreement. Even with standardised, pre-prepared
report comments, the reality of individualising these takes more than the given allocation
which when broken down is usually around ten minutes (or less) per report. We cannot just
stop writing reports halfway through a class set no matter how long they take. (Principal
teacher, secondary, Highlands and islands)

29
5.1.3 Student wellbeing responsibilities
Four categories were offered in this section of the time use diary:
• Out of class learning conversations with pupils
• Communicating with parents / carers / colleagues / external agencies
• Pastoral care duties
• Behaviour incident follow-up
Table 5 shows the total number of hours spent on student wellbeing by role.
Table 5: Number of hours spent on wellbeing tasks overall within contract time.
Median (Mean)
SD
Head
8.00 (11.30)
9.13
Deputy head
10.00 (14.91)
9.20
Principal
5.00 (6.78)
6.53
Lead
5.00 (6.40)
6.07
Chartered
2.50 (3.57)
3.52
Main grade
2.00 (2.78)
3.26
Probationer
3.00 (3.70)
3.46
Kruskal-Wallis analyses examined whether there were significant differences between those
in different teacher positions and the amount of time, in hours, they spent on the tasks related
to pupil wellbeing outside class contact time (χ2 (6, N = 1834) = 265.71, p < .001). Post-hoc
tests with a Bonferroni correction showed that main grade teacher, probationers and chartered
teachers spent significantly less hours on this category than teachers in promoted posts.
Table 6: Pairwise comparison on overall wellbeing contact hours differences
Headteacher
Deputy
head
Principal
Lead
Chartered
Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher
>.999
.487
>.999
.004
<.001
.023
Deputy
Head
<.001
.383
<.001
<.001
<.001
Principal
>.999
.014
<.001
.289
Lead
>.999
>.999
>.999
Chartered
>.999
>.999
Main grade
.336
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)
Note: limiting the number of hours spent on wellbeing tasks to 35 hours did not change the
pattern nor the significance of the results (χ2 (6, N = 1831) = 264.91, p < .001) (see technical
annex for full results).
Figures 6 and 7 (overleaf) show the number of hours and mean percentage of time
committed to each category.

30
Figure 6: Number of hours spent on pupil wellbeing by category and role
Figure 7: Percentage of hours spent on pupil wellbeing by category and role
For all roles except deputy headteacher (where it was second), ‘Communicating with parents
/ carers / colleagues / external agencies’ took the highest percentage of time. For probationers,
this was very closely followed by ‘Out of class learning conversations with pupils’. For deputy
headteachers, ‘Behaviour incident follow-up’ took most time. The distribution of time spent on
pupil wellbeing activities was broadly similar across roles in primary and secondary sectors.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Probationer Main grade
teacher
Chartered
teacher
Lead teacher Principal
teacher
Deputy
headteacher
Headteacher
Mean percentage for each category
Current position at school
Out of class learning conversations with pupils
Communicating with parents/carers/colleagues/external agencies
Pastoral care duties
Behaviour incident follow-up
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Probationer Main grade
teacher
Chartered
teacher
Lead teacher Principal
teacher
Deputy
headteacher
Headteacher
Mean number of hours
Current position at school
Out of class learning conversations
Communicating with
parents/carers/colleagues/external
agencies
Pastoral care duties
Behaviour incident follow-up

31
Figure 8: Percentage time spent on pupil wellbeing activities by sector
5.1.4 Other activities outside class contact
Table 7 shows the total number of hours spent on activities outside lessons by role. Kruskal-
Wallis analyses were carried out examining whether there were significant differences
between those in different teacher positions and the amount of time, in hours, they spent on
tasks outside lessons (χ2 (6, N = 1834) = 164.13, p < .001). Post-hoc tests with a Bonferroni
correction showed that main grade teacher, probationers and chartered teachers spent
significantly less hours on this category than deputy heads). Main grade teachers also spent
significantly less time than headteachers and principal teachers on this category.
Teachers in promoted posts reported spending a lot of time reacting or ‘fighting fires’. Staffing
issues, absence management and class cover meant that senior leaders struggled to find time
to be strategic. Interviewees reported a lack of clarity around responsibility for breaktime
supervision resulting in some senior leaders taking on this role.
Table 7: Activities outside lessons by role.
Median (Mean)
SD
Head
15.00 (18.00)
14.89
Deputy head
13.00 (15.81)
10.96
Principal
6.00 (7.99)
6.81
Lead
6.00 (6.20)
3.77
Chartered
4.00 (6.07)
9.06
Main grade
4.00 (4.63)
4.02
Probationer
5.00 (5.31)
3.31

32
Table 8: Pairwise comparison on overall activities outside school contact hours differences
Headteacher
Deputy
head
Principal
Lead
Chartered
Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher
>.999
>.999
>.999
.138
.009
.476
Deputy
Head
.008
>.999
<.001
<.001
<.001
Principal
>.999
.076
<.001
.793
Lead
>.999
>.999
>.999
Chartered
>.999
>.999
Main grade
>.999
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)
Note: limiting the number of hours spent on activities outside of school to 35 hours did not change the
pattern nor significance of the results (χ2 (6, N = 1827) = 155.07, p < .001) (see technical annex for full
results).
The survey asked teachers to respond to how they used their time in relation to ten
categories of time use outside lessons:
• Breaktime duties or supervisory roles
• Co/extracurricular activities
• Mentoring other teachers/supervising student teachers
• Additional/specialist roles
• Professional development
• Formal parents’ meetings
• All other meetings
• Email /School-related social media / sharing work with parents / carers on VLE
platforms
• Other administrative duties
• Other tasks
Figure 9: Percentage of activity outside class contact by role

33
5.2 Working time outside contracted hours
This section reports those activities that respondents reported were ‘done beyond your
contractual 35 hours (or fraction thereof, if part-time) i.e., non-contractual hours’, both within
and outside of school, including separate questions relating to mornings, evenings and
weekend.
On average, teachers reported spending 11.39 hours in the week outside of contracted
hours on work-related activity undertaken in the morning before work, into the evening and
at home at the weekend.
The survey offered 17 time use options:
• Preparing resources
• Planning and preparing lessons
• Data recording, input and analysis
• Marking and feedback to pupils
• Writing reports
• Preparing Additional Support Plans
• Preparing for inspection
Key summary points
• On average, teachers reported spending 11.39 hours in the week outside
of contracted hours on work-related activity undertaken in the morning
before work, into the evening and at home at the weekend.
• The three activities that consume by far the largest time commitment outside
contracted hours (and totalling over five and a half hours) are planning and
preparing lessons (2 hours and 15 minutes), preparing resources (1 hour
and 50 minutes), and marking and feedback for pupils (one hour and 30
minutes).
• On average, teachers who completed the time use diary spent almost four
hours on work-related activity at the weekend.
• Work beyond teachers contracted hours was the strongest predictor of
perceived stress.
• Results from the perceived stress scale show that the teachers working in
urban settings, early career teachers, and teachers who had more time with
face-to-face commitments reported higher levels of stress.
• Interviewees accounts suggest school policies vary regarding expectations
that teachers will access work-related emails in evenings and weekends.
• Many teachers reported extensive use of electronic platforms such as MS
Teams, WhatsApp, and Google classroom could assist in managing
workload remotely, but also increase working hours.
• Interviewees reported negative effects of extended working hours on family
life, including reduced participation in social and leisure activities, less time
spent with their own children, and increased reliance on partners to manage
family responsibilities.
• The Teachers’ Job Satisfaction scale shows a correlation between working
time in the evening and weekends and a decline in job satisfaction.
• Workload was a contributing factor influencing teachers’ career decisions
i.e., whether to seek promotion, move schools, move into education-related
work, or exit the profession.

34
• Communicating with parents/carers/colleagues/external agencies
• Behaviour incident follow-up
• Mentoring other teachers/supervising student teachers
• Additional/specialist roles
• Professional development
• Formal/informal parents’ meetings
• All other meetings
• Email/ School-related social media / sharing work with parents / carers on VLE
platforms (or some similar wording)
• Other administrative duties
• Other tasks
5.2.1 Morning and evening
The time spent across a wide range of activities varied with more time spent on preparing
resources, planning and marking than other categories. (Table 9).
Table 9: Percentage of total number of hours spent in the morning & evening outside contracted
hours.
Tasks
Mean
Hours
Mean
Percentage
SD
Total evening hours
11.39
7.91
Preparing resources
17.65
15.34
Planning and preparing lessons
20.59
16.78
Data recording, input and analysis
5.46
8.44
Marking and feedback to pupils
13.71
17.08
Writing reports
5.53
12.57
Preparing additional support plans
2.26
5.88
Preparing for inspection
1.19
5.47
Communicating with parents/carers/colleagues/external
agencies
5.18
8.53
Behaviour incidents follow up
3.18
6.40
Mentoring other teachers/supervising student teachers
2.18
6.16
Additional/specialist roles
1.89
6.16
Professional development
4.78
9.83
Formal/informal parents’ meetings
2.34
7.28
All other meetings
2.83
6.33
Email/school-related social media/sharing work with
parents/carers on VLE platforms
5.32
8.50
Other administrative duties
2.97
8.30
Other tasks
2.95
10.93

35
Figure 10: Mean values for the number of hours worked in mornings and evenings
After examining the mean number of hours spent on different categories across the cohort this
was broken down further to look at the number of hours spent on different categories
depending on participants’ current position at school (Figure 11).
A Kruskal-Wallis test examined whether there were significant differences in the total amount
of time spent working in the morning and evening outside contracted working hours based on
role in school. This test showed that there was a significant difference (χ2 (6, N = 1674) =
39.90, p < .001) with Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons showing that deputy head
teachers did significantly more hours outside school contracted hours in the week than
chartered teachers (p = .026) and main grade teachers (p = .002). Main grade teachers
did significantly fewer extra hours in this period than principal teachers (p < .001). After
correction for type one error no other comparisons reached significance (ps => .242).

36
Figure 11: Mean number of hours for mornings & evenings by time use category and role
Probationer Main grade
teacher
Chartered
teacher Lead teacher Principal
teacher
Deputy
headteacher Headteacher
Preparing Resources 2.64 1.93 1.51 2.20 1.55 0.43 0.79
Planning 3.62 2.37 1.60 1.86 1.78 0.46 0.79
Data Re cording 0.50 0.55 0.49 0.59 0.91 1.28 2.80
Marking 1.19 1.56 1.15 1.54 1.62 0.20 0.04
Report Writing 1.09 0.78 0.97 1.92 0.53 1.76 0.27
Support Plans 0.37 0.24 0.11 0.00 0.32 2.53 0.85
Inspection 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.22 0.09 0.61
Communicating with Carers 0.77 0.48 0.59 0.81 1.17 1.46 1.90
Behaviour incident follow up 0.40 0.30 0.63 1.05 0.65 2.04 0.58
Mentoring 0.02 0.24 0.16 0.93 0.32 0.80 0.56
Additiona l roles 0.09 0.16 0.38 1.40 0.35 0.68 0.31
Professional Development 0.96 0.50 0.43 0.25 0.52 0.62 1.33
Parent meetings 0.85 0.26 0.21 0.00 0.33 0.88 0.41
Other meetings 0.35 0.29 0.11 0.51 0.63 0.99 0.00
Email and social media 0.59 0.53 0.78 1.21 0.80 2.69 1.06
Other admin tasks 0.23 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.72 1.51 3.20
Other tasks 0.19 0.33 1.27 0.37 0.22 0.64 0.63
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Mean number of hours
Current position at school

37
5.2.2 Weekend
On average, teachers who completed the time use diary spent almost four hours on work-
related activity at the weekend.
Table 10: Overall number of hours spent in the weekend outside contracted hours.
Tasks
Mean
Hours
Mean
Percentage
SD
Total Weekend hours
3.91
4.06
Preparing resources
19.37
25.38
Planning and preparing lessons
28.20
30.03
Data recording, input and analysis
3.22
10.78
Marking and feedback to pupils
16.25
29.27
Writing reports
8.56
22.85
Preparing additional support plans
1.35
7.38
Preparing for inspection
1.55
9.60
Communicating with parents/carers/colleagues/external
agencies
1.74
8.20
Behaviour incidents follow up
0.48
3.54
Mentoring other teachers/supervising student teachers
1.07
6.66
Additional/specialist roles
1.45
9.32
Professional development
4.73
15.68
Formal/informal parents’ meetings
0.40
4.59
All other meetings
0.12
1.30
Email/school-related social media/sharing work with
parents/carers on VLE platforms
6.08
16.72
Other administrative duties
2.11
9.60
Other tasks
3.30
14.85

38
Figure 12: Mean number of hours worked beyond contracted hours at the weekend
There were significant differences in the number of extra hours worked beyond teachers’
contracted hours at the weekend by position (χ2 (6, N = 1667) = 16.26, p = .012). After
correction for type one error using a Bonferroni correction the only significant result found that
main grade teachers spend fewer hours working on the weekend than probationary
teachers (p = .008). No other comparisons were significant (ps => .112). There were also
significant differences in the number of extra hours worked beyond teachers’ contracted hours
at the weekend by sector (χ2 (3, N = 1667) = 11.98, p = .007). Bonferroni corrected pairwise
comparisons showed that primary teachers indicated that they worked longer hours than
secondary teachers (p = .005).

39
Figure 13: Mean hours spent at weekend by category and teacher role.
Probationer Main grade
teacher
Chartered
teacher Lead teacher Principal
teacher
Deputy
headteacher Headteacher
Preparing Resources 1.42 0.71 0.64 2.00 0.65 0.19 0.00
Planning 2.14 1.06 0.64 1.60 0.71 0.31 0.15
Data Re cording 0.11 0.12 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.17 0.25
Marking 0.37 0.65 0.74 1.20 0.83 0.04 0.05
Report Writing 0.64 0.47 0.59 0.40 0.26 0.30 0.00
Support Plans 0.12 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.33 0.00
Inspection 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.11 0.30
Communicating with Carers 0.12 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.11 0.30 0.55
Behaviour incident follow up 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.37 0.05
Mentoring 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00
Additiona l roles 0.00 0.04 0.07 1.40 0.11 0.30 0.00
Professional Development 0.37 0.16 0.15 0.00 0.22 0.28 0.50
Parent meetings 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05
Other meetings 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00
Email and social media 0.29 0.14 0.17 0.40 0.29 0.25 0.50
Other admin tasks 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.22 0.54 1.10
Other tasks 0.27 0.13 0.25 0.00 0.15 0.97 0.50
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
Mean number of hours
Current position at school

40
Analysis of interview transcripts indicates that some schools set clear parameters about
access to emails in evenings and weekends. Other schools were less successful in managing
expectations. For example, a school leader advised teachers to ‘switch off notifications in
holiday periods, but to be aware that everybody’s individual lifestyle means that they may be
working at different times’ (Principal Teacher, secondary, Highlands and islands). Pressure is
experienced by receiving emails from colleagues that often have short deadlines/require
urgent attention/are ‘send to all’. There are clear areas of ambiguity with staff authoring emails
at night or the weekends and scheduling emails to be sent the next weekday morning. Some
teachers felt they needed to be available 24/7 to respond to communications from senior staff,
parents or pupils. Interviewees reported that parental expectation around communication/
communicating with parents has increased their workload, and resulted in work that might
have been done within contracted hours being moved to outwith contracted hours. Secondary
main grade teachers were more likely to refer parent communications for the attention of
principal teachers or guidance staff. Teachers experienced a heightened sense of personal
responsibility to respond rapidly to areas of pupil concern. Furthermore, extensive routine use
of electronic platforms such as MS Teams, WhatsApp and Google classroom increased
access to teachers outside school. Interviewees commented that e-platforms both helped
them to manage their workload from home in terms of ease of access, but also made them
more susceptible to working longer outside school. Strategies to manage workload included
the use of voice notes to provide verbal rather than written feedback to pupils at secondary
school (main grade secondary, Eastern Scotland).
A couple of things have changed in the post-Covid period, it's certainly this idea that you're
available all the time to your headteacher. In fact, it's become acceptable to just work over
hours and to work at the weekend. It's just the new norm. (Principal teacher, primary,
Southern Scotland)
We always receive an email on Sunday night to open on Monday on what's coming in the
week ahead. It has eight or nine things that need to be done by Wednesday, but my non-
contact time is Thursday morning. (Main grade, primary, Highlands and island)
I don't think our management lead by example. There's a WhatsApp group that buzzes all
weekend, and emails are sent out on a Sunday that usually require some sort of response.
(Main grade, secondary, Eastern Scotland)
Interviewees reported negative effects of extended working hours on family life, especially the
contraction of quality time to spend with their own children and partners. One teacher
commented on struggling to find time for conversations with her partner, ‘I'm waiting for the
weekend to almost breathe’ (Principal teacher, Primary, Eastern Scotland, urban). Others
commented on the stress of frequently delegating domestic duties (e.g. shopping, childcare,
preparing meals) because they needed to work late or make time for schoolwork at weekends.
Teachers referred to panic attacks, stress and anxiety arising from an inability to complete all
that was required of them. Others noted going without food and drink at school because breaks
and lunch periods were consumed with administrative duties and preparing convenience foods
for their own families due to tiredness and/or to create more time in the evenings for
schoolwork. The routine spillover into family time for female and male teachers meant reduced
leisure time, and many duties were transferred to partners, which sometimes created tension
at home.
It does have a negative impact on my own kids, the amount of time I've spent at weekends
being in the same house but doing schoolwork. (Main grade, primary, North Eastern)
You lose a lot of family time. We talk a lot about the wellbeing of our children at school, but
you work six days a week, you're physically exhausted, and you're not mentally working at
your best. That is a massive impact on my wellbeing. I'm not getting to spend as much time
with my family, and that has an impact on relationships. (Principal teacher, primary, Southern
Scotland)

41
There are days where I will not have anything to eat, or very little time to drink anything, and
come home completely exhausted. (Main grade, secondary, West Central)
One night I was sitting here at ten to nine on my laptop, getting organised for the next day. It's
dark outside, it's miserable. I wasn't going to the gym. I wasn't doing anything for me. And I
just thought I cannot do this anymore. At the Christmas holidays there was a couple of days I
just didn't leave the house; I was so tired. I’m in my twenties. I love my job, but I cannot do
this. I’m exhausted. (Main grade, secondary, Southern Scotland)
I think children of teachers don't get the best of them as parents - they definitely don't. Other
folks’ children get the best of me. (Secondary, main grade teacher, Southern Scotland)
I feel like a zombie to be honest when I get home at night. You always feel like you've got
nothing left to give. (Secondary teacher, Principal teacher, Southern Scotland)
5.3 Teacher responses to perceived stress scale
The survey included a validated perceived stress scale. A regression analysis looked at what
factors would predict scores on this scale. Initial investigations included position, years
teaching experience, sector, type of contract (full/part times), contract status (permanent,
temporary), number of schools taught at, location of current school, total number of hours
worked in the working week before and after school but outside of contracted hours and total
number of hours worked outside of contracted hours at the weekend. After dummy coding, the
nominal variables; position (main grade as the reference), sector (Primary as the reference),
contract (permanent as the reference) and location (urban as the reference) correlations were
run to establish whether the predictors correlated with the outcome measure score on the
perceived stress scale. The correlations established that position, number of schools and
sector did not correlate with the outcome measure and so these variables were not included
in the final regression model. The regression model was significant (F (12, 1577) = 14.48, p <
.001) and explained 9% of the variance (adjusted R2). (See technical annex for a replication
of these results when the number of hours was restricted to 22.5 for face-to-face contact and
35 hours for all other categories).
Examination of the coefficients showed that teachers in urban settings were more stressed
than those in rural settings (p = .017). Those with fewer years’ experience as a teacher were
also more stressed than those with more (p < .001). Teachers who had more time with face-
to-face commitments were more likely to be stressed than those with less (marginal, p = .079).
Most importantly, stress levels were higher in those who spent more time working
outside of their contracted hours in the working week (p <.001) and on the weekend (p
< .001). The standardised coefficients shows that work beyond teachers contracted
hours was the strongest predictor of perceived stress. These results indicate that the
more burdened teachers are with needing to work beyond their contracted hours the more
stressed they will be.

42
Table 11: Regression model Perceived Stress
Prolonged working hours reduce the recuperation time that is available to teachers to help
them to cope with work-related stress. Examples in the interviews included:
Workload is not always piles of marking or doing reports. A lot of the time it’s the unseen work
of managing your mental health, reflecting on a classroom experience, having downtime from
a difficult interaction with a student. Letting those emotions sit with you and working through
that. (Main grade, secondary, West Central)
In summary these results suggest that stress is increased by working longer hours.
Importantly, it shows that there are no differences in stress between those in different sectors
or the position that a teacher held. Instead, this is a universal finding that those who have to
work more, especially beyond their contracted hours, will have a greater level of general stress
in their lives. It is important to note that this is not just stress in relation to their job but
that the workload burden leaves teachers feeling stressed within all aspects of their
lives.
5.4 Job satisfaction & career intentions
This section of the survey asked a series of questions (Table 12) using the TIMSS Teachers’
Job Satisfaction scale (Mullis et al., 2020). Correlations were run to establish the relationship
between working time and reported job satisfaction. These correlations showed that as
working time in the evening and weekends increased, the less content and appreciated
teachers felt within their profession.
Table 12: Correlations between the number of hours spent on different tasks and job satisfaction
I am
content
with my
profession
I find my
work full
of
meaning
and
purpose
I am
enthusiastic
about my
job
My work
inspires
me
I am
proud of
the work
I do
I feel
appreciated
as a
teacher
I value
my time
with the
pupils
Hours
face to
face
.008
.012
-.016
-.017
-.016
-.075*
.009

43
Hours
Prep
-.038
-.008
.002
.013
.013
-.028
.010
Hours
Wellbeing
-.084**
-.068**
-.018
-.052*
-.010
-.100*
.027
Outside
school
.008
-.005
.034
.008
.068*
-.018
.026
Evening
hours
-.087**
-.020
.013
-.025
.015
-.112**
.092**
Weekend
hours
-.069**
-.027
.010
.034
.022
-.066**
.067**
Year-long
workload
-.139**
-.102**
-.083**
-.085**
-.026
-.141**
.062**
Negative values indicate a negative relationship (i.e., as one score goes up the other goes down).
* significant to .05
** significant to .01
The demands of excessive workload were a contributing factor influencing teachers’
career moves. For some this was a decision to look for employment overseas, or UK
education-related work in cognate areas such as re-training in educational psychology to
support children with additional support needs, or employment with an educational charity.
One probationer teacher would not be seeking employment in a mainstream school but had
decided to move to working with small groups in alternative provision or special education due
to the challenges of large class sizes with high needs.
For teachers with caring commitments, workload was cited as a factor in their decision
to leave the profession earlier than planned. Others requested flexible working and sought
to reduce their contract from full time to fractional e.g. 0.8 FTE to achieve a manageable work-
life balance. Teachers entering teaching from other demanding careers were quick to point
out that working lives do not have to be this challenging. Some experienced teachers elected
to remain in teaching due to the lack of a viable alternative (with comparable salary) or were
considering leaving for non-graduate occupations. The notion that teaching was a ‘less
attractive profession’ due to issues of behaviour and workload was widely held, such as:
To be honest, I regularly think about leaving the profession. The expectations are just more
and more unmanageable. Think of all the things we do to meet the needs of young people,
which I completely support, but at what cost to teachers? If something happens, the culture is
‘what did you do to cause that?' as if you're always the cause of a young person's stress or
issues, when that is very rarely the case. That culture I find really difficult; the lack of insight
into what teachers do and the toll that takes on you. (Main grade, secondary, West Central)
I had a meltdown with my PT at the beginning of the week. I just don't know if I want to do
this job anymore. I'm a good teacher but I find myself asking, how many more years can I put
myself through this? I hold it together, but I get to a point where I'm so exhausted and so
stressed that I become physically ill. (Main grade, secondary, Highland and Islands)
It's got to a crazy level. You just feel that you're not able to give the children what they need.
If you're not able to do yourself justice, you walk away thinking have I done a good job? And I
don't think I've achieved that. So, unless something changes this might not be the promised
career that it was supposed to be, a career for life. (Principal teacher, primary, Southern
Scotland)
I see teachers leaving to become joiners, carpenters, and postal workers. People don’t have
the appetite anymore to stick with the overwork for an extended period of time if they have
other options. There's also kind of a kind of gallows humour, trench culture, where people are
punishing themselves for not being able to do it. (Main grade, secondary, Highland and
Islands)

44
I've actively dissuaded friends’ children and my own children from going anywhere near
education as a career because it's brutal. It takes so much out of you and your family. (Main
grade, Early years, North Eastern Scotland)
For some, moving schools was regarded as one strategy to alleviate workload pressures. An
early career teacher in their second year of teaching reported high rates of teacher turnover,
which they perceived to relate to excess workload (Main grade, primary, Highlands and
Islands, rural).
Workload pressures on senior staff were cited by main grade teachers as a key reason not to
pursue promotion pathways in teaching. Teachers observed a lack of support for new
headteachers and the excessive workload of principal teachers and deputes. Several teachers
acknowledged that principal teachers sought to act as a buffer for staff from increased
workload by adopting an intermediary role to alleviate pressures from senior management.
However, they suggested they felt ‘lucky’ rather than expected to have supportive professional
relationships. Others anticipated a lack of practical assistance from senior staff should they
raise concerns, and a lack of authenticity in espoused teacher wellbeing policies. For example,
one teacher observed, ‘I just know there wouldn't be direct support. It would just be we're all in
this exhausted sinking ship together. And let's try and get through it’ (Main grade, secondary,
Southern Scotland). Three interviewees had relinquished promoted posts (Faculty roles and
principal teacher positions) to return to the role of main grade teacher.
The principal teacher is being crushed. It all seems to come crashing into the middle. You do
everything. That's not guidance's job, that's not careers job, that's your job. It's beyond
breaking point, really. Messages go out. We don't know what everybody's going through,
please be mindful of colleagues; but in the next communication, it's please do X, Y and Z. It’s
a mismatch between we're here to support, but things need to get done. (Principal Teacher,
secondary, Highlands and islands)
I see what my deputy has to deal with on a day-to-day basis. She's dealing with social work
concerns, major welfare concerns, an increased number of referrals to different services. At
Depute level they're stuck in that midpoint, still managing the teachers they’re responsible for,
while the needs of the children have increased hugely. I have absolutely no aspiration
anymore to go further. (Main grade, primary, Eastern Scotland)
I don't want to progress up. I've seen what it's doing to my current PT. He doesn't look happy.
He just looks exhausted the entire time and I don't want that. He stays even later than I do. I
know I can't do that. I can't make that sacrifice. (Main grade secondary, Highlands and island)

45
6 Conclusion
This research was commissioned to examine the workload of teachers, the extra hours they
work beyond their contractual 35-hours, and the drivers of teacher workload in Scotland.
The research was guided by the following research questions:
• What are the main activities that constitute teacher workload?
• What is the balance of this workload over the working week?
• What extra hours do teachers work beyond their contractual hours?
• Where do workload demands come from, out with class contact time?
• What are the main reasons for failure to achieve a 35-hour working week for
teachers?
The research considered the policy background influencing teachers’ workload in Scotland
(Section 2) and reviewed the knowledge base on teacher workload from international research
(Section 3). The evidence presented draws on an online time use diary completed by 1,834
teachers during the full calendar week beginning 4th March 2024, supplemented by 40 semi-
structured interviews (Section 4). To explore the drivers of prolonged working hours the
research first examined how teachers spend their time both within and beyond their class-
contact time in a typical week, and then identified categories of work that spillover into
evenings and the weekend. This final section draws together key insights in relation to the
research questions.
Reported working hours in the target week indicate that teachers in Scotland are routinely
working well beyond the 35-hour working week stipulated in the Teachers’ Agreement, A
Teaching Profession for the 21st Century (SEED, 2001). On average, the teachers who
participated in the research reported working 46 hours in the target week. Teachers spent 11
hours 23 minutes, on average, outside their contracted hours on work-related activity that
was undertaken in the morning before work, in the evening and at home at the weekend
(Tables 9 and 10). This shows no improvement from the Teacher Working Time Research
conducted by the University of Glasgow in 2005-06 that found teachers to be working 45 hours
per week (Menter et al., 2006), and is an increase on the 8 additional hours reported in the
2022-23 EIS member survey (EIS, 2023b). Two decades after the Teachers’ Agreement,
teachers in Scotland continue to work well beyond their contracted hours and working hours
are rising.
The deepening of pupil conduct and support issues is changing how teachers use their time.
Within class-contact time, two thirds of teachers’ time (all grades) in the target week was
focused on learning interactions. The remaining third of main grade teachers’ time in class
was spent on behavioural interruptions (22%) and managing resources (11%) (Figure 3).
During follow-up interviews, teachers reported a perceived increase in behavioural issues that
interrupt learning. This is consistent with the findings of the Behaviour in Scottish Schools
Research (BISSR) (Scottish Government, 2023). Moreover, teachers interviewed in the 2024
Teacher Workload Research reiterated the finding of the 2023 BISSR survey that more time
is required to ensure that nurturing and restorative approaches to managing discipline can be
deployed effectively. A perceived increase in behavioural issues creates additional
administrative tasks in reporting incidents and pursuing appropriate follow-up action, including
pastoral care and emotional support for pupils. Teaching is a relational activity, and persistent
relational challenges intensify the emotional labour of teaching. In the post-pandemic period,
teachers are increasingly placed in the front line of children’s services. As their responsibilities
expand, the emotional intensity of teachers’ work increases (Education Support, 2023). This
study contributes to an emerging body of research that connects pupil conduct issues with
declining job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion (Aldrup et al., 2018; de Ruiter et et al.,
2020).

46
The core activities outside class-contact time but within contractual hours that dominate
teachers’ time are planning and marking. These two activities accounted for 6 hours and 49
minutes, on average, in the teachers’ time use diary. In the target week, the mean number of
hours spent outside class (within contracted hours) by main grade teachers on planning and
preparation was 4 hours 15 minutes (4.25 hours, 41.8%), plus a further 2 hours 34 minutes
(2.57 hours, 25.7%) on marking and providing feedback to pupils (Figure 4). In addition, on
average, main grade teachers spent one hour communicating with parents/ carers/
colleagues/ external agencies, 39 minutes on behaviour referral, 25 minutes on pastoral work,
and 42 minutes for out-of-class learning conversations (Figure 6). Interviewees confirm that
time for administrative and student wellbeing processes was taken from time allocated to the
core tasks of planning and preparation, creating time pressures for class committed teachers.
Providing short notice cover for staff absence linked to behavioural incidents was a much less
frequent but additional challenge for senior leaders.
While the job demands made of teachers are increasing, teachers often contend with
escalating need without sufficient additional resource in terms of time or support. A reported
increase in learner needs, a contraction of support for learning in many local authorities, a
decline in pupil attendance and increase in emotionally based school non-attendance create
additional time pressures for teachers who are committed to responsive personalised
planning. The sharp increase in the number of children and young people with identified
additional support needs (Pupil Census, 2023) was reflected in the experiences of teachers
who took part in follow-up interviews. Teachers expressed concern about the capacity of
schools to address escalating need in the context of a reduction in the number of ASN
teachers and associated increase in the number of pupils that ASN teachers now support
(Scottish Government, 2023, Scottish Children’s Services Coalition, 2024). Some disquiet was
expressed regarding the capacity of the education system to continue to fully support the
presumption to mainstream. Taking a whole system approach, frontline teachers will
experience a backwash from the financial pressure on local authority budgets at a time of
increasing service demands (Audit Scotland, 2024).
Across roles, sectors and regions there was widespread support for effective use of data to
improve teaching and learning, but insufficient time within contracted hours to navigate
systems of data entry for recording and monitoring learner progress. Teachers commented on
the frequency with which they were required to quantify and report on learner progress and
expressed frustration at duplication of effort in disjointed systems and a perceived disconnect
with reporting processes and day-to-day practices of teaching and learning. Directed activities
were perceived to be burdensome if an explicit connection with the quality of teaching and
learning was not firmly established. This confirms earlier research that identifies relevance, or
the perceived educational benefit for learners, as a key factor influencing attitudes to workload
(Lawrence at et al., 2019; Worth & Van den Brande, 2020). Several working groups over a
decade have sustained a focus on reducing bureaucracy and unproductive workload (Scottish
Government, 2013, 2015; Scottish Government, 2016). This research suggests that this
remains an issue for many teachers in Scotland.
It is concerning that the work that teachers report cannot be accomplished within their
contracted working hours are non-negotiables within their core role as educators. The three
activities that consume by far the largest time commitment outside contracted hours (over
5 and half hours) are planning and preparing lessons (2 hours and 15 minutes), preparing
resources (1 hour and 50 minutes), and marking and feedback for pupils (one hour and 30
minutes) (Figure 11). Participating teachers reported spending, on average,
almost four hours (3 hours and 55 minutes) on work-related activity at the weekend. At the
weekend the four most common activities are activities are planning (one hour), preparing
resources (42 minutes), marking (39 minutes) and report writing (26 minutes) (Figure 13).
This finding contributes to a growing body of work that demonstrates that teachers will

47
extend their working hours to complete valued tasks aligned with their sense of
professionalism (Martin et at al., 2023). A culture of caring professionalism renders many
teachers vulnerable to over work and consequently reduced recuperation time. This
research provides further evidence of ‘self-endangering’ habits of over work that have a
negative impact on teachers’ health and wellbeing and family life (Beck, 2017; Hoppe et al.,
2023).
Opportunities to engage in on-going professional development is a hallmark of a profession
and many teachers make time for this beyond their contracted hours. Time for elective
professional learning was reduced to just 35 minutes during the week, on average, for main
grade teachers in this study. The contraction of elective self-directed professional learning
was associated with competing demands and the immediate need to attend to multiple ‘take
home’ tasks that spill over beyond contracted hours. Many teachers reported being caught in
a continuous cycle of ‘catching up’ that constrained possibilities for deeper forms of reflection
and strategic professional development. It is likely that the capacity of the teacher workforce
in Scotland to meet changing learner needs will be affected, in some part, by reduced time
and willingness to undertake unfunded self-directed professional learning. More time will be
needed within contracted hours to meet the challenges of large-scale assessment reform and
to adapt the curriculum to future needs.
While some tasks that cannot be completed during the working week and spillover beyond
contracted hours are undertaken through a sense of professionalism, others are experienced
as directed activity over which teachers have little control. There is some variability between
schools in Scotland in how far teachers are supported to set limits around their work
responsibilities and working hours away from school. While main grade teachers reported, on
average, spending around ten minutes accessing work-related email at weekends (Figure 13),
these communications entailed subsequent planning and reporting activity and a sense of
always being available. This is consistent with international research that records the blurring
of boundaries between teachers’ work and home life because of increased access to
information and communications technology and declining levels of task discretion (Reid and
Creed, 2021; Selwyn, 2022).
Workload manageability – and the balance between elective and directed activity - is important
because of its links with sustainability and ultimately turnover. In this study stress levels were
higher among those who spent more time working beyond their contracted hours in the
working week and at the weekend (Section 5.3). As working time in the evening and weekends
increased, the less content and appreciated teachers felt within their profession (Section 5.4).
Prolonged working hours and reduced discretion over tasks have implications for career
choices and mobility (between schools and beyond education). Research elsewhere in the UK
has established strong links between teacher working conditions, recruitment and quality
retention (McLean et al., 2024).
The professional life of educators, as reported by the teachers who completed the time use
diary and took part in interviews for this study, is clearly under strain. Teachers in Scotland,
and comparable national/ regional education systems, are currently facing a perfect storm of
increased job demands and declining organisational support.
The key drivers of teacher workload reported in this study are:
• Multiple competing pressures on non-teaching time that mean that core activities -
planning, preparation and marking - cannot be accomplished in contractual hours
• Increased pupil behaviour and attendance issues
• More diverse learner needs requiring personalised planning
• Increased and more complex Additional Support Needs
• Reduction in support for learning

48
• Insufficient funding to support increased job demands
A policy focus on excessive working time and occupational wellbeing in teaching is timely.
This study provides little support for the effectiveness of workload reduction strategies to date.
Working hours are rising. Declining job quality and workload manageability have significant
implications for the quality of education and career choices. Further investigation is needed to
explore the possible relationship between prolonged working hours, increased job demands,
falling recruitment patterns, teacher mobility/immobilities (between schools and regions) and
attrition rates (i.e., push-pull factors). Teacher workload and wellbeing needs to be considered
within whole system strategies to improve educational outcomes. Increased staffing numbers
and increased support - in terms of non-contact time and access to specialist expertise and
development opportunities - will help to protect the quality of education in Scotland’s schools
and promote positive perceptions of teaching as an attractive and sustainable career choice.

49
Appendix 1: Participant characteristics
Gender
The time use diary and survey questions were completed by 1,834 teachers. Of these 1518
(82%) were female, 303 (16.5%) male, 5 non-binary and 8 preferred not to say. This is broadly
in line with the general teaching population as set out by Scottish School Census (Scottish
Government, 2023), which records the gender composition of the primary education workforce
as 89% female and 11% male, and secondary education as 65% female and 35% male. The
teacher workload sample is therefore gender representative of teachers across Scotland.
Ethnicity
The self-identified ethnic breakdown of the participants was 11 Asian, 3 Black, 1794 White,
22 mixed or multiple ethnicities and 4 others. Grouping the minority ethnic groups together,
2% of participants in the sample are from a BAME background which is identical to the teacher
census data. There were 97% of participants from a white background, which is slightly higher
than the general teaching population as set out by Scottish School Census of 92%, but within
reasonable limits for a representative sample given the proportion of those from minority
groups is identical to the census data.
Age
The mean age of the participants was 40.87 (SD = 10.16). Figure 1a and b gives the mean
age of each gender and ethnicity respectively. This is in line with the general teaching
population as set out by Scottish School Census where average age was 41.
Figure 14: Mean age of survey participants by gender.
Figure 15: Mean age of survey participants by ethnicity.

50
Teaching role
The participants were employed across the full range of roles from probationer to headteacher
(Table 13).
Table 13: Total number of survey respondents by school position.
Number
Percentage
School census
percentage
Probationer
37
2.0%
-
Main grade teacher
1440
78.5%
76%
Chartered teacher
34
1.9
-
Lead
5
0.3%
14%
Principal
273
14.9%
Deputy head
35
1.9%
5%
Headteacher
10
0.5%
4%
Note: the census data does not have all the categories which were used in this survey and so values cannot be
given for all comparisons. The census data also collapsed the lead and principal teacher role.
Sector
Details of the sector in which the sample teachers worked is shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Survey respondents by sector
Previous experience
Participants had a mean of 14.11 (SD = 9.25) years of experience as a teacher and most had
taught in fewer than five schools. A higher number of schools reflects those teachers who
have worked as short-term supply teachers (Table 16).

51
Table 15: Previous experience: number of schools
Years taught by primary teachers in current role
Table 16 gives the number of primary teachers who teach in each year, with some participants
teaching across multiple years.
Table 16: Primary teacher respondents by year group
Year
Number of teachers
P1
257
P2
288
P3
311
P4
336
P5
339
P6
336
P7
304
Subjects taught by secondary teachers in current role
Secondary teachers were asked to provide information on which subject areas they primarily
taught, with participants able to select multiple areas (Table 17).

52
Table 17: Secondary respondents by subject(s) taught
Subject taught
Number
Art and Design
40
Biology with science
52
Business education
37
Chemistry with science
47
Community languages
2
Computing science
19
Dance
3
Drama
20
English
146
Gaelic
6
Geography
28
History
45
Home economics
39
Mathematics
79
Modern foreign languages
42
Modern studies
46
Music
50
Physical education
40
Physics with science
34
Psychology
6
Religious education
24
Support for learning
31
Technological education
17
Learning support/guidance
41
Other
26
School setting
The majority of participants worked in either urban (44%) or small town (42%) settings, with
fewer working in rural (11%) or island communities (2.5%) (Table 18).
Table 18: Location of school settings of survey respondents

53
Local authorities
Teachers completing time use diaries were employed across the 32 local authorities in
Scotland.
Table 19: Survey respondents by local authority

54
Tenure by contract type
Most participants were on permanent contracts (1691, 92%) with fewer on temporary (131,
7%) and short-term supply contracts (12, 0.6%). This is broadly in line with the general
teaching population as set out by Scottish School Census which showed that between 78-
85% were in permanent positions and 11-16% were in temporary positions (Scottish
Government, 2023).
The majority of participants were employed on full-time contracts (1474, 80%) with fewer on
part-time (360, 20%) contracts. Both values are in line with the Scottish School Census data
of 80% for full-time and 20% part-time. Of those on part -time contracts, most were on either
0.6 contracts (122) or 0.8 contracts (112).
Interview sample by role and sector
Forty remote interviews were conducted with teachers who had completed the time use diary
and survey questions (Table 21). The interview sample comprised 28 female teachers (70%)
and 12 males (30%) currently employed in schools in 26 local authorities.
Table 20: Interview sample by role and sector.
Role
Sector
Count
Chartered
Primary
1
Secondary
1
Chartered Total
2
Deputy
Pri/Early Years
2
Secondary
1
Special
1
Deputy Total
4
Headteacher
Primary
1
Secondary
1
Headteacher Total
2
Main grade
Early Years
2
Primary
8
Pri/Sec
1
Secondary
12
Main grade Total
23
Principal
Secondary
4
Principal Total
4
Probationer
Primary
4
Secondary
1
Probationer Total
5
Grand Total
40

55
Appendix 2: Time use diary & survey
You will be asked about your time use (workload) in the week commencing 4 March 2024, including
workdays, evenings and the weekend. You will be asked to identify the main activities that constitute
your workload, the influences on your time use, and how your workload affects your wellbeing.
In order to participate in this study, we need to ensure that you understand the nature of the research,
as outlined on the Participant Information page.
Please tick the boxes to indicate that you understand and agree to the following conditions.
✱
I confirm that I have read the information sheet for this study. I have
had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questions and have had
these answered satisfactorily.
I understand that in order to take part in this study, I should/ be at least 18
years old and have normal or corrected to normal vision.
I understand that personal data about me will be collected for the purposes of
the research study including age and gender, and that these will be processed in
accordance with the information sheet.
I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw
at any time without giving any reason, without my legal rights being affected.
I understand that my data is anonymous and will be stored on secure
university servers. I understand that it will be used by the investigators for
research purposes and to provide an overview of the findings to the Educational
Institute for Scotland
I understand that data will be anonymous once given and it will be impossible
to withdraw at a later date. However, any data given will be completely anonymous and
so it will not be possible to identify any individuals.
I agree to take part in this study
Consent form
About you

56
Please note y ou can click to save and continue the survey at the end of any page should you wish to pause and return to
it at another time. The survey should take approximately 30 minutes to complete in total.
✱ Please move the slider to indicate your age in years
Age (in years)
✱ Please indicate your gender identity
Male
Female
Non-binary
Prefer not to say
✱ Please indicate your ethnicity
Asian
Black
White
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups
Other
✱ Please indicate your professional experience (how many years you have been a teacher)

57
✱
Please select your current position at school
Probationer
Main grade teacher
Chartered teacher
Lead teacher
Principal teacher
Deputy headteacher
Headteacher
✱ Please select the sector you predominantly work at (select the one which applies most to you)
Early years
Primary
Secondary
Special
Please select the main years you teach in (select all that apply)
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7

58
Please select your main curriculum area (secondary only): Tick all those that apply
Art and Design
Biology with Science
Business Education
Chemistry with Science
Community Languages
Computing Science
Dance
Drama
English
Gaelic
Geography
History
Home Economics
Mathematics
Modern Foreign Languages
Modern Studies
Music
Physical Education
Physics with Science
Psychology
Religious Education

59
Support for learning
Technological Education
Learning Support/Guidance
Other
✱ Please indicate the location of your school
Urban
Small town
Rural
Island Community
✱ Please select which local authority you work within.
Aberdeen City Council
Aberdeenshire Council
Angus Council
Argyll and Bute Council
City of Edinburgh Council
Clackmannanshire Council
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
Dumfries and Galloway Council
Dundee City Council
East Ayrshire Council
East Dunbartonshire Council

60
East Lothian Council
East Renfrewshire Council
Falkirk Council
Fife Council
Glasgow City Council
Inverclyde Council
Midlothian Council
North Ayrshire Council
North Lanarkshire Council
Orkney Islands Council
Perth and Kinross Council
Renfrewshire Council
Scottish Borders Council
Shetland Islands Council
South Ayrshire Council
South Lanarkshire Council
Stirling Council
The Highland Council
The Moray Council
West Dunbartonshire Council
West Lothian Council
Other setting or independent school

61
✱ Please indicate the number of schools you have taught in since qualification
Number of Schools
✱ Please indicate the type of contract you have
Permanent
Temporary
Short term Supply contract
Full-time contracted working hours are 35 hours a week; with 22.5 hours of teaching and additionally no less than a third
of this figure allocated for preparation & correction. All tasks that do not require a teacher to be on the school premises
can be undertaken at a time and place of the teacher’s own choosing
The following questions will ask you about your work done within your contractual 35 hours a week (or fraction thereof,
if part-time) and, then further questions will ask you about your work done beyond your contractual 35 hours
(or fraction
thereof, if part-time) i.e. non-contractual hours
Please answer the following questions within the time usage diary with these hours in mind.
✱ Please select your contract type
Full time
Part
time

If your contract is part-time please indicate what FTE you are contracted to work per term-time week (1 = full time)
FTE contract hours
The following questions ask you to reflect on your time usage in the following categories
Please note y ou may need to scroll up to return to look at these categories again during the following questions
Table 1 Categories of time use
Face-to-face teaching activities
• Learning interactions
• Minor learning disruptions
• Significant behavioural interruptions
•
Managing resources
Preparation and admin tasks
• Planning and preparing lessons
•
Data recording, input and analysis
• Marking and feedback to pupils
• Writing
reports
• Preparing Additional Support Plans
•
Preparing for inspection
Student wellbeing responsibilities
• Out of class learning conversations with pupils
• Communicating with parents/carers about student learning/colleagues/external agencies
• Pastoral care duties
• Behaviour incident follow-up
Activities outside lessons
• Breaktime duties or supervisory role
•
Co/extracurricular activities
• Mentoring other teachers/supervising student teachers
Additional/specialist roles
• Professional development
•
Formal/informal parents’ meetings
•
All other meetings
• Email
• Other administrative duties
• Phone calls to parents/carers
Time usage diary

Full-time contracted working hours are 35 hours a week; with 22.5 hours of teaching and additionally no less than a third of
this figure allocated for preparation & correction. All tasks that do not require a teacher to be on the school premises can be
undertaken at a time and place of the teacher’s own choosing
The following questions will ask you about your work done within your contractual 35 hours a week (or fraction thereof, if
part-time) and, then further questions will ask you about your work done beyond your contractual 35 hours (or fraction
thereof, if part-time) i.e. non-contractual hours
✱ Reflecting on the week beginning 4th March, within your contracted hours approximately how many hours did you spend
on
Face-to-face teaching activities
(total number of hours)
✱
Thinking of the hours spent on Face-to-face teaching please input the percentage of time you spent on each of these
categories (it should total to 100%)
Learning interactions

Minor learning disruptions
%
Significant behavioural
interruptions
%
Managing resources (e.g.,
technology and equipment)
%
Total Percentage
✱ Reflecting on the week beginning 4th March, within your contracted hours approximately how many hours did you spend
on
Preparation and admin tasks
(number of hours)
✱ Thinking of the hours spent on preparation and admin tasks please input the percentage of time you spent on each of
these categories (it should total to 100%)
Data recording, input and
analysis
%
Marking and feedback to pupils
%
Writing reports
%
Preparing Additional Support
Plans
%
Preparing for inspection
%
0

Planning and preparing lessons
%
Total Percentage
%
✱ Reflecting on the week beginning 4th March, within your contracted hours approximately how many hours in school did you
spend on Student wellbeing responsibilities (number of hours)
✱ Thinking of the hours spent on wellbeing responsibilities input the percentage of time you spent on each of these
categories (it should total to 100%)
Out of class learning
conversations with pupils
%
Communicating with parents/carers/colleagues/external
agencies %
Pastoral care duties
%
Behaviour incident follow-up
%
Total Percentage
%
✱ Reflecting on the week beginning 4th March, within your contracted hours approximately how many hours did you spend
on Activities outside lessons at school (number of hours)
0
0

Thinking of the hours spent on activities outside lessons input the percentage of time you spent on each of these
categories (it should total to 100%)
Breaktime duties or supervisory roles
%
Co/extracurricular
activities
%
Mentoring other teachers/supervising
student teachers%
Additional/specialist
roles
%
Professional development
%
Formal parents’ meetings
%
All other meetings
%
Email /School-related social
media
/
sharing work with
parents
/
carers on VLE platforms%
Other administrative duties
%
Other tasks (please specify below)
%

Total Percentage
%
If you have selected 'other tasks' above please state what these are here.
The following questions relate to anything you did
outside
your contracted hours (which if you are full-time equate to 35
hours per week).
Reflecting on the week beginning 4th March, outside your contracted hours approximately how many hours did you spend
on work-related activity: - within the working week (such as before and
after school hours
)
If you have indicated that you are doing extra work outside y our contracted hours within the working week both within
school and outside (such as before and after school hours) please can you indicate approximately how many hours you
have spend on each of the following categories (please write the number in the box). Please exclude weekend hours as
these will be covered in the next question.
Preparing resources
Planning and preparing lessons
Data recording, input and
analysis
Marking and feedback to pupils
Writing reports
0

Preparing Additional Support
Plans
Preparing for inspection
Communicating with
parents/carers/colleagues/external
agencies
Behaviour incident follow-up
Mentoring other
teachers/supervising student
teachers
Additional/specialist
roles
Professional development
Formal/informal parents’
meetings
All other meetings
Email/ School-related social
media
/
sharing work with
parents / carers
on VLE platforms
(or some similar
wording)
Other administrative duties
Other tasks (please specify below)

If you have selected 'other tasks' above please state what these are here.
Reflecting on the week beginning 4th March, outside your contracted hours approximately how many hours did you spend
on work-related activity: - at the weekend
If you have indicated that you are doing extra work outside y our contracted hours at the weekend please can you
indicate approximately how many hours you have spend on each of the following categories (Please enter the number of
hours in the box)
Preparing resources
Planning and preparing lessons
Data recording, input and
analysis
Marking and feedback to pupils
Writing reports
Preparing Additional Support
Plans
Preparing for inspection
Communicating with
parents/carers/colleagues/external
agencies
Behaviour incident follow-up

Mentoring other
teachers/supervising student
teachers
Additional/specialist
roles
Professional development
Formal/informal parents’
meetings
All other meetings
Email/ School-related social
media
/
sharing work with
parents / carers
on VLE platforms
(or some similar
wording)
Other administrative duties
Other tasks (please specify below)
If you have selected 'other tasks' above please state what these are here.
Across the school year, is the amount of time you spend outside lessons on the following far too
little/
too
little/
about
right/ too much/ far too much?
Sliding scale 1-100 with 1 = far too little, 50 = about right, and 100 = far too much. 0 = this statement is not
applicable to you
Individual lesson planning

Generating curriculum resources
Data recording input and analysis
Counselling and Behaviour incident follow-up
Marking pupils’ work
Communication with parents/carers
Tuition of pupils, outwith of class contact (e.g., SQA study groups)
Teamwork/meetings with colleagues

Delivering uncontracted extracurricular activities
Contact with people outside of school other than parents
General administration
Professional development
Teachers’ workload varies across the school year. Please indicate the calendar months(s) where your workload is highest
(peaks).
January
February
March
April
May

June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Please briefly say why this is your busiest month/s
What are the most significant factors outside your control that influence how you spend your time
in school? and why?
What are the most significant factors within your control that influence how you spend your time in
school? and why?
Factors affecting your workload

What are your main take-home tasks? and why?
What strategies are in place to help teachers manage workload at your school e.g. marking and feedback policy,
approaches to lesson planning, data tracking tools, communication protocols, school behaviour policy, cover
arrangements and working time agreements? How effective are these? (e.g. reducing workload, no difference,
increased workload) Has this strategy been sustained?
Please just put the appropriate letter for columns 2 and 3
School strategies
Reduced (R) / No difference
(N)/ Increased workload (I) Sustained? Y/N
Row 1
Row 2
Row 3
Row 4
Row 5
✱ The seven items below measure your attitudes toward your time. Please read each item carefully. They are rated using a
1- to 5-point Likert scale in which 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = generally, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
1.
I feel that my time is very
fragmented.
2.
There is no autonomy in the
allocation of my time.
1 = strongly
disagree
2 = disagree
3 =neither agree
or disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly
agree
How you feel about your time usage

3.
I often feel that I do not have
enough time at work.
4.
I feel that I do not have
enough time to improve my
professional skills.
5.
I feel that my teaching hours
are often taken up by
transactional (i.e., routine
administrative) work.
6.
I feel that I do not have
enough time to share family
responsibilities.
7.
I feel that I do not have
enough time with my friends.
✱
The questions in this scale ask about your feelings and thoughts during the last month. In each case, you will be
asked to indicate how often you felt or thought a certain way. Although some of the questions are similar, there are
differences between them and you should treat each one as a separate question. The best approach is to answer fairly
quickly. That is, don’t try to count up the number of times you felt a particular way; rather indicate the alternative that
seems like a reasonable estimate
0 – never 1 – almost never 2 – sometimes 3 - fairly often 4 - very often
l. In the last month, how often
have you been upset because
of something that happened
unexpectedly?
2.
In the last month, how often
have you felt that you were
unable to control the important
things in your life?
3.
In the last month, how often
have you felt nervous and
stressed?
4.
In the last month, how often
have you felt confident about
your ability to handle your
personal problems?
Your thoughts and feelings during the last month

5.
In the last month, how often
have you felt that things were
going your way?
6.
In the last month, how often
have you found that you could
not cope with all the things that
you had to do?
7.
In the last month, how often
have you been able to control
irritations in your life?
8.
In the last month, how often
have you felt that you were on
top of things?
9.
In the last month, how often
have you been angered
because of things that
happened that were outside of
your control?
10.
In the last month, how often
have you felt difficulties were
piling up so high that you could
not overcome them?
✱
Have you considered leaving the profession in the last two years?
Yes
No
Why you have considered leaving the profession in the last two years?
Feelings about being a teacher

What holds you in the profession and why?
How do you feel about being a teacher?
I am content with my profession as a teacher
I find my work full of meaning and purpose
I am enthusiastic about my job
My work inspires me
I am proud of the work I do
I feel appreciated as a teacher

I value my time with the pupils
Are there any other areas of your work which you would like to give feedback on which has not
been covered elsewhere?
Future contact
We are keen to understand as fully as possible Scottish teachers’ experiences of workload. As
such, we would like to invite you to participate in follow-up interview (conducted online or by
telephone) as part of this research. We expect interviews to take no more than 45 minutes. If
you are happy for us to retain your contact details and contact you for this purpose, please
ENTER a contact email address below.
This information will be kept separate to your survey responses and so will not compromise your
anonymity on the survey as this is kept in a separate location to your survey responses

79
Appendix 3: Interview topic guide
TEACHER WORKLOAD RESEARCH
Date: Mode: Duration:
Interviewee ID code: Interviewer:
Interview Guide
[Revisit Participant Information Sheet, consent procedure and allow time for questions]
We would like to give you an opportunity to say a little more about your responses to the Workload
Diary. Before we start, can we check some demographic details with you? Is there any other
contextual information that you would like to share that you feel is relevant to our conversation about
workload?
1. We asked, what are the most significant factors outside your control that influence how you spend
your time in school? Can you say a little more about the influences on how you spend your time in
school? Who or what focuses your attention in this way?
a. How do feel about the level of directed activity in your role?
b. How do feel about the level of discretionary activity in your role?
c. In your opinion, how does how you spend your time influence the quality of provision?
2. We asked, what are the most significant factors within your control that influence how you spend
your time in school? Why do you choose to spend your time on certain activities rather than
others? Which are the most important activities in your opinion and why?
a. Is there alignment between how you must spend your time and how you would
choose to spend your time in school?
b. As an experienced teacher [if relevant], has your workload changed across your
career? If so, in what ways? What is the impact of this on you?
3. We asked, what are your main take-home tasks? Can you say a little more about why these tasks
are taken home to complete?
a. How often do you need to take school work home? Why?
b. How much time do you give to school-related work at home each week?
c. How manageable do you find making time for school work outside working hours?
What is the impact of this on your life outside school?
4. We asked about the strategies/policies that are in place to help teachers manage workload at
your school. Can you tell me about these and whether you feel they are helpful?
a. Have you sought support in relation to your workload in school? What was the
response?
b. Have you ever taken time off work due to the impact of workload?
5. We asked if you had considered leaving the profession in the last two years. Can you say a little
more about your career intentions?
a. What keeps you in teaching?
b. Why have you considered leaving?
6. If you could change one thing that would have a significant impact on your workload, what would
that be?
7. Is there anything further that you want to say about teacher workload that you have not yet had
the opportunity to say?
Thank you for participating in this research.

80
References
Adams, L., Coburn-Crane, S., Sanders-Earley, A., Keeble, R., Harris, H., Taylor, J. & Taylor,
B. (2023) Working lives of teachers and leaders – wave 1. Research report. Department for
Education. Government Social Research.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
ta/file/1148571/Working_lives_of_teachers_and_leaders_-_wave_1_-_core_report.pdf
Ainsworth, S., & Oldfield, J. (2019). Quantifying teacher resilience: Context matters.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 82, 117–128.
AITSL (2021) Australian Teacher Workforce Data: National Teacher Workforce
Characteristics Report December 2021 (the ATWD Teacher Workforce Report).
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/australian-teacher-workforce-data/atwdreports
Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Student
misbehavior and teacher well-being: Testing the mediating role of the teacher–student
relationship. Learning and Instruction, 58, 126 –136.
Allen, R., Benhenda, A., Jerrim, J. & Sims, S. (2020). New Evidence on Teachers’ Working
Hours in England. An Empirical Analysis of Four Datasets. Research Papers in Education
36(6):657–81.
Audit Scotland (2006) A mid-term report. A first stage review of the cost and implementation
of the teachers’ agreement A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century. Available from
https://audit.scot/docs/central/2006/nr_060511_teachers_agreement.pdf
Audit Scotland (2024) Briefing: Local government budgets 2024/25. Available from
https://audit.scot/uploads/2024-05/briefing_240514_councils_budgets.pdf
Baumfield, V., Hulme, M., Livingston, K. & Menter, I. (2010) Consultation and engagement?
The reshaping of teacher professionalism through curriculum reform in 21st Century
Scotland, Scottish Educational Review, 42 (2), 57-73.
Beck, J. L. (2017). The weight of a heavy hour: Understanding teacher experiences of work
intensification. McGill Journal of Education, 52(3), 617–636.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1050906ar
BERA (2018) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research.
https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018
Boeskens, L. and D. Nusche (2021). Not enough hours in the day: Policies that shape
teachers’ use of time, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 245, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/15990b42-en.
Chapman, C. & Donaldson, G. (2023) Where next for Scottish Education: Learning is
Scotland’s Future? Unpublished working paper, University of Glasgow.
https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_930286_smxx.pdf
Churches, R. & Fitzpatrick, R. (2023) Workload reduction in schools in England. Education
Development Trust.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
ta/file/1172547/Workload_reduction_in_schools_in_England.pdf
Churches, R., Hall, R. & Sims, K. (2022) Reducing workload improves teacher wellbeing and
has no negative effects on student attainment – a meta-analysis of teacher-led quantitative
studies, Chartered College of Teaching Journal, Impact. Issue 15

81
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A Global Measure of Perceived Stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
Collie, R. J., & Mansfield, C. F. (2022). Teacher and school stress profiles: A multilevel
examination and associations with work-related outcomes. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 116, 103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103759
Crawford, E. R., Lepine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364
Creagh, S., Thompson, G., Mockler, N., Stacey, M., & Hogan, A. (2023) Workload, work
intensification and time poverty for teachers and school leaders: a systematic research
synthesis, Educational Review, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2023.2196607
de Ruiter, J. A., Poorthuis, A. M. G., Aldrup, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2020). Teachers'
emotional experiences in response to daily events with individual students varying in
perceived past disruptive behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 82, 85 –102.
Donaldson, G. (2010) Teaching Scotland’s Future.
https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/2178/7/0110852_Redacted.pdf
Education Scotland (2016) Review of local authorities’ actions to tackle unnecessary
bureaucracy and undue workload in schools. Available from
https://education.gov.scot/media/t0vpcwq5/review-of-local-authorities.pdf
Education Support (2023) Teaching: the new reality. Available from
https://www.educationsupport.org.uk/media/cxkexon2/teaching-the-new-reality.pdf
Education Workforce Council (EWC) (2021) 2021 National Education Workforce Survey
Report. https://www.ewc.wales/site/index.php/en/documents-eng/about/workforce-
statistics/national-education-workforce-survey-1/451-national-education-workforce-survey-
report-2021-1/file
EIS (2021) EIS Member survey 2021: Workload Findings.
https://www.eis.org.uk/Content/images/corona/WorkloadSurvey.pdf
EIS (2023a) Violence & Aggression Branch Survey Report and Campaigning
Recommendations: Full Report. Available from:
https://www.eis.org.uk/Content/images/Campaigns/QualityEducation/ViolenceAggressionSur
veyReport.pdf
EIS (2023b) 2023 EIS Member Survey. Workload, Health and Wellbeing, and The Cost-of-
Living Crisis. Available from
https://www.eis.org.uk/Content/images/Research/2023MemberSurvey.pdf
Elliott, A., Reddy, L. A., Lekwa, A. J., & Fingerhut, J. (2024). Teacher stress and supports,
classroom practices and student outcomes in high poverty urban elementary
schools. Psychology in the Schools, 61, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23023
Green, F. (2021). British teachers’ declining job quality: Evidence from the skills and
employment survey. Oxford Review of Education, 47(3), 386–403.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1847719
GTCS (2021) GTC Scotland’s response to the Muir Review. Available from
https://www.gtcs.org.uk/about-us/consultations/muir-review-on-education-reform

82
Hayward, L. (2023) It's Our Future - Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment:
report. Available from https://www.gov.scot/publications/future-report-independent-review-
qualifications-assessment/
Heffernan, A., Bright, D., Kim, M., Longmuir, F., & Magyar, B. (2022). ‘I cannot sustain the
workload and the emotional toll’: Reasons behind Australian teachers’ intentions to leave the
profession. Australian Journal of Education, 66(2), 196–209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00049441221086654
Hoppe, A., Lopper, E., Prestele, E., Milius, M., Nitz, S., Gahrmann, C., & Reis, D. (2023).
Extending and intensifying work as mediators in the relationship between weekly time
pressure and fatigue: The moderating role of perfectionism. International Journal of Stress
Management, 30(3), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000294
Irish National Teachers' Organisation (2022). Teacher workload: INTO research report: final
report: December 2022. Dublin: INTO.
Jerrim, J. & Sims, S. (2022) School accountability and teacher stress: international evidence
from the OECD TALIS study. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 34, 5–
32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-021-09360-0
Kennedy, A. & Bell, L. (2023) School-Based Teacher Educators: A Scottish Manifesto. In
Menter, I. (Ed) The Palgrave Handbook of Teacher Education Research. Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 503-528.
Kingsford-Smith, A., Collie, R., Loughland, T., Nguyen, H. (2023) Teacher wellbeing in rural,
regional, and metropolitan schools: Examining resources and demands across locations,
Teaching and Teacher Education,132,104229, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104229
Lawrence, D., Loi, N.& Gudex, B. (2019) Understanding the relationship between work
intensification and burnout in secondary teachers, Teachers and Teaching, 25(2), 189-
199, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2018.1544551
Lewis, S. & Hartong, S. (2021) New Shadow Professionals and Infrastructures Around the
Datafied School: Topological Thinking as an Analytical Device. European Educational
Research Journal,21(6), 946-960
Liu, T., Yang, X., Meng, F. & Wang, Q. (2023) Teachers Who are Stuck in Time:
Development and Validation of Teachers’ Time Poverty Scale, Psychology Research and
Behavior Management, 16:, 2267-2281, DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S414132
Martin, K., Classick, R., Sharp, C. and Faulkner-Ellis, H. (2023) Supporting the recruitment
and retention of teachers in schools with high proportions of disadvantaged pupils:
understanding current practice around managing teacher workload. NFER/ EEF. Available
from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-
reviews/workload-review
McCormac, G. (2011) Advancing Professionalism in Teaching: The Report of the Review of
Teacher Employment in Scotland. Available from
https://www.eis.org.uk/Content/images/pay/Salaries/McCormac%20Report.pdf
McGrath-Champ, S., Wilson, R., Stacey, M. & Fitzgerald, S. (2018). Understanding work in
schools: The foundation for teaching and learning. NSW Teachers Federation.
McLean, D., Worth, J. and Smith, A. (2024). Teacher Labour Market in England: Annual
Report 2024. Slough: NFER. Available from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/teacher-
labour-market-in-england-annual-report-2024/

83
Menter, I., McMahon, M., Forde, C., Hall, J., McPhee, A., Patrick, F. & Devlin, A.M. (2006)
Teacher Working Time Research: Final Report to the Scottish Negotiating Committee for
Teachers. Project Report. Scottish Government / Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee,
Edinburgh, UK. Available from https://www.snct.org.uk/library/319/Final%20Report%20-
%20%20Version%2018%20August%202006%20-%20Teacher%20working%20t..pdf
Muir, K. (2022) Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish
Education. Available from https://www.gov.scot/publications/putting-learners-centre-towards-
future-vision-scottish-education/documents/
Mulholland, R., McKinlay, A. & Sproule, J. (2017) Teachers in need of space: the content
and changing context of work, Educational Review, 69(2), 181-
200, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2016.1184131
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019
International Results in Mathematics and Science. Available from Boston College, TIMSS &
PIRLS International Study Center: https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-
results/
Murphy, M. (2022) Taking education to account? The limits of law in institutional and
professional practice, Journal of Education Policy, 37(1), 1-16.
Nwoko, J.C., Emeto, T.I., Malau-Aduli, A.E.O. & Malau-Aduli, B.S. (2023) A Systematic
Review of the Factors That Influence Teachers’ Occupational Wellbeing. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. (12)6070.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20126070
OECD (2021) Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: Into the Future, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b58fdbce-en.
OECD (2023). Unravelling the layers of teachers’ work-related stress.Teaching in Focus, No.
46, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bca86c20-en.
Oldfield, J. & Ainsworth, S. (2022) Decentring the ‘resilient teacher’: exploring interactions
between individuals and their social ecologies, Cambridge Journal of Education, 52(4), 409-
430, https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2021.2011139
Pan, H.-L.W.; Chung, C.-H.; Lin, Y.-C. (2023) Exploring the Predictors of Teacher Well-
Being: An Analysis of Teacher Training Preparedness, Autonomy, and Workload.
Sustainability, 15(7) 5804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075804
Pangrazio, L., Selwyn, N., & Cumbo, B. (2023). A patchwork of platforms: mapping data
infrastructures in schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 65–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2035395
Pentland, S.J., Fuller, C., Spitzley, L. & Twitchell, D. (2022) Does accuracy matter?
Methodological considerations when using automated speech-to-text for social science
research, International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2087849
Perryman, J. & Calvert, G. (2020) What motivates people to teach and why do they leave?
Accountability, performativity and teacher retention., British Journal of Educational
Studies, 68(1), 3-23, DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2019.1589417
Priestley, M., Shapira, M., Priestley, A., Richie, M., Barnett, C. (2020) National Qualifications
experience 2020: rapid review. Scottish Government. Available from
https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/handle/1893/33188

84
Reid, D. B., & Creed, B. M. (2021). Visible at night: US school principal nontraditional work-
hour activities and job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration and Leadership.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211027645
Saloviita, T., & Pakarinen, E. (2021). Teacher burnout explained: Teacher-, student-, and
organisation-level variables. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97 103221,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103221
Scottish Children’s Services Coalition (2024) Coalition Raises Concerns as New Figures
Highlight Cuts in Specialist Support for Vulnerable Children. [Online] March 19, 2024.
Available from https://www.thescsc.org.uk/coalition-raises-concerns-as-new-figures-
highlight-cuts-in-specialist-support-for-vulnerable-children/
Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED) (2001) A Teaching Profession for the 21st
Century: Agreement reached following recommendations made in the McCrone report.
Available from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/10785/
Scottish Government (2011) Continuing to build excellence in teaching – The Scottish
Government’s response to Teaching Scotland’s
Future. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/920/0114570.pdf
Scottish Government (2015) Curriculum for Excellence Working Group on Tackling
Bureaucracy. Follow Up Report. Available from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/22897/
Scottish Government (2016a) Evaluation of the Impact of the Implementation of Teaching
Scotland's Future. Available from
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-
analysis/2016/03/evaluation-impact-implementation-teaching-scotlands-
future/documents/00495434-pdf/00495434-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00495434.pdf
Scottish Government (2016b) Delivering Excellence and Equity in Scottish Education: A
Delivery Plan for Scotland. Available from https://www.gov.scot/publications/delivering-
excellence-equity-scottish-education-delivery-plan-scotland/documents/
Scottish Government (2017) Education Governance. Empowering teachers, parents and
communities to achieve excellence and equity in education. Available from
https://www.gov.scot/publications/education-governance-next-steps-empowering-teachers-
parents-communities-deliver-excellence/documents/
Scottish Government (2019) Independent Panel on Career Pathways for Teachers, Final
Report. Available from https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-panel-career-
pathways-teachers-final-report/
Scottish Government (2021a) Scotland’s Curriculum: Into the Future: Implementation
framework for the OECD’s 2021 review of Curriculum for Excellence. Available from
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-curriculum-future-implementation-framework-
oecds-2021-review-curriculum-excellence/documents/
Scottish Government (2021b) A Fairer Greener Scotland. Programme for Government 2021-
22, Available from https://www.gov.scot/publications/fairer-greener-scotland-programme-
government-2021-22/documents/
Scottish Government (2023a) Summary statistics for schools in Scotland 2023. Available
from https://www.gov.scot/publications/summary-statistics-for-schools-in-scotland-
2023/documents/

85
Scottish Government (2023b) Behaviour in Scottish Schools 2023. Available from
https://www.gov.scot/publications/behaviour-scottish-schools-research-report-
2023/documents/
Scottish Government (2024a) Pupil census supplementary statistics, 2023. Available from
https://www.gov.scot/publications/pupil-census-supplementary-statistics/
Scottish Government (2024b) Pupil projections and implications for teacher resourcing
needs in Scotland Education workforce modelling and research. A WPI Economics Report
for the Scottish Government. Available from
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-
analysis/2024/05/pupil-projections-implications-teacher-resourcing-needs-scotland-
education-workforce-modelling-research/documents/pupil-projections-implications-teacher-
resourcing-needs-scotland/pupil-projections-implications-teacher-resourcing-needs-
scotland/govscot%3Adocument/pupil-projections-implications-teacher-resourcing-needs-
scotland.pdf
Scottish National Party (2021) SNP Manifesto 2021: Scotland’s Future. Available from
https://issuu.com/hinksbrandwise/docs/04_15_snp_manifesto_2021___a4_document?mode
=window
Scottish Parliament (2001) A teaching profession for the 21st century: agreement reached
following recommendations made in the McCrone report.
https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/10785/
Scottish Parliament (2024a) Additional Support for Learning Inquiry. Education, Children and
Young People Committee, SP Paper 585, published 15 May 2024. Available from
https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/Committees/Report/ECYP/2024/5/15/496ab9b0-
bd4a-40ed-8f16-64d07018b3d6
Scottish Parliament (2024b) Additional Support for Learning Inquiry, Education, Children and
Young People Committee. Session 6, 21 February 2024. Available from
https://www.parliament.scot/api/sitecore/CustomMedia/OfficialReport?meetingId=15724
Scottish Parliament (2024c) Written question and answer: S6W-26184, Spending data on
additional support for learning. Lodged by Miles Briggs, MSP for Lothian, Scottish
Conservative and Unionist Party, 14 March 2024. Answered by Jenny Gilruth, Cabinet
Secretary on 26 March 2024. Available from https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-
committees/questions-and-answers/question?ref=S6W-26184
Seith, E. (19 April 2024) Teacher recruitment targets not changed in Scotland. TES
Scotland. Available from https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/teacher-recruitment-
targets-not-changed-scotland
Selwyn, N. (2022). ‘Just playing around with Excel and pivot tables’ - the realities of data-
driven schooling. Research Papers in Education, 37(1), 95–114.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1812107
Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S. and Johnson, N. (2017) ‘High-tech, hard work: an investigation of
teachers’ work in the digital age’, Learning, Media and Technology, 42(4), 390–405. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1252770
SERA (2005) SERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research.
https://www.sera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2018/08/SERA-Ethical-
GuidelinesWeb.pdf

86
Sims, S. & Jerrim, J. (2020) TALIS 2018: teacher working conditions, turnover and attrition.
London: DfE.
Skinner, B., Leavey, G. & Rothi, D. (2021) Managerialism and teacher professional identity:
impact on well-being among teachers in the UK, Educational Review, 73(1), 1-
16, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1556205
SNCT (2007) SNCT Handbook of Conditions of Service. [Online] Available from
https://www.snct.org.uk/
SNCT (2007) SNCT Handbook of Conditions of Service. https://www.snct.org.uk/
Spicksley, K. (2022) Hard work / workload: discursive constructions of teacher work in policy
and practice, Teachers and Teaching, 28(5), 517-
532, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2022.2062741
Stacey, M., Fitzgerald, S., Wilson, R., McGrath-Champ, S., & Gavin, M. (2021). Teachers,
fixed-term contracts and school leadership: toeing the line and jumping through hoops.
Journal of Educational Administration and History.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2021.1906633
Stacey, M., Gavin, M., Fitzgerald, S., McGrath-Champ, S. & Wilson, R. (2023) Reducing
teachers’ workload or deskilling ‘core’ work? Analysis of a policy response to teacher
workload demands, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2023.2271856
Stacey, M., Wilson, R. & McGrath-Champ, S. (2022) Triage in teaching: the nature and
impact of workload in schools, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(4), 772-
785, DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2020.1777938
Sullivan, O., Gershuny, J., Sevilla, A., Walthery, P. & Vega-Rapun, M. (2020) Time use diary
design for our times - an overview, presenting a Click-and-Drag Diary Instrument (CaDDI) for
online application. Journal of Time Use Research https://doi.org/10.32797/jtur-2020-1
te Braak, P., van Tienoven, T. P., Minnen, J., & Glorieux, I. (2023). Data Quality and Recall
Bias in Time-Diary Research: The Effects of Prolonged Recall Periods in Self-Administered
Online Time-Use Surveys. Sociological Methodology, 53(1), 115-
138. https://doi.org/10.1177/00811750221126499
Thomson, G. (2021) The Global Report on the Status of Teachers 2021 Report. Education
International Research. 2021_EI_Research_StatusOfTeachers_ENG_FINAL.pdf
Vannest, K. J., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2010). Teacher Time Use in Special Education.
Remedial and Special Education 31(2):126–42.
Viac, C. & Fraser, P. (2020) Teachers’ well-being: A framework for data collection and
analysis OECD Education Working Papers, No. 213, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/c36fc9d3-en.
Worth, J., Tang, S. and Galvis, M. (2022). Assessing the impact of pay and financial
incentives in improving shortage subject teacher supply. Slough: NFER.

87
Technical Annex
Face-to-face teaching activities by role
Table 21: Number of hours spent on overall face-to-face teaching for collapsed positions.
Median (Mean)
SD
Head/Deputy
6.00 (7.99)
6.74
Principal/Lead
19.00 (18.66)
6.20
Chartered/main
22.50 (21.34)
5.60
Probationer
20.00 (20.98)
6.14
A Kruskal-Wallis analyses were carried out examining whether there were significant
differences between those in different teacher positions (using the larger collapsed categories)
and the amount of time, in hours, they spent on the face-to-face tasks (χ2 (3, N = 1834) =
160.06, p < .001). Post-hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction showed that Headteachers and
Deputies spent significantly less time on face-to-face contact hours than those in other teacher
positions.
Table 22: Pairwise comparison on overall face-to-face contact hours differences collapsed categories
Headteacher/
deputy
Principal/Lead
Chartered/Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher/deputy
<.001
<.001
<.001
Principal/Lead
<.001
>.999
Chartered/Main grade
.326
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)
Preparation and administration time within contracted hours by role
Table 23: Number of hours spent on overall preparation and admin tasks within contracted hours by
collapsed position
Median (Mean)
SD
Head/Deputy
10.00 (13.39)
11.93
Principal/Lead
10.00 (10.71)
6.76
Chartered/Main
grade
10.00 (10.14)
6.02
Probationer
12.00 (12.55)
29.00 (5.87)
A Kruskal-Wallis analyses were carried out examining whether there were significant
differences between those in different teacher positions (collapsed categories) and the amount
of time, in hours, they spent on the preparation tasks (χ2 (3, N = 1834) = 17.94, p < .001). Post-
hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction showed that principal and lead teachers spent more
hours on this category than main grade teachers but with probationers spending the longest
time.
Table 24: Pairwise comparison on overall preparation contact hours differences by collapsed
position
Headteacher/Dep
uty
Principal/Lead
Chartered/Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher/Deputy
>.999
>.999
>.999
Principal/Lead
.009
.807
Chartered/Main grade
.028
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)

88
Student wellbeing responsibilities
Table 25: Number of hours spent on overall wellbeing contract hours by collapsed position
Median (Mean)
SD
Head/Deputy
10.00 (14.11)
9.21
Principal/Lead
5.00 (6.77)
6.51
Chartered/Main
grade
2.00 (2.80)
3.27
Probationer
3.00 (3.70)
3.47
A Kruskal-Wallis analyses were carried out examining whether there were significant
differences between those in different teacher positions (collapsed categories) and the amount
of time, in hours, they spent on the wellbeing tasks (χ2 (3, N = 1834) = 263.70, p < .001).
Post-hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction showed that main grade teacher, probationers and
chartered teachers spent significantly less hours on this category than teachers in promoted
posts.
Table 26: Pairwise comparison on overall wellbeing contract hours by collapsed position
Headteacher/Deputy
Principal/Lead
Chartered/Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher/Deputy
<.001
<.001
<.001
Principal/Lead
<.001
.088
Chartered/Main grade
.104
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)
Other activities outside class contact
Table 27: Number of hours spent on other activities outside class contact by collapsed position.
Median (Mean)
SD
Head/Deputy
15.00 (16.30)
11.79
Principal/Lead
6.00 (7.95)
6.77
Chartered/Main
grade
4.00 (4.66)
4.21
Probationer
5.00 (5.31)
3.31
A Kruskal-Wallis analyses were carried out examining whether there were significant
differences between those in different teacher positions (collapsed categories) and the amount
of time, in hours, they spent on other activities outside class contact (χ2 (3, N = 1834) = 163.04,
p < .001). Post-hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction showed that main grade teacher and
probationers spent significantly less hours on this category than heads. Main grade teachers
also spent significantly less time than principal teachers on this category as well.
Table 28: Pairwise comparison on overall other activities contact hours differences
Headteacher/Deputy
Principal/Lead
Chartered/Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher/Deputy
.001
<.001
<.001
Principal/Lead
<.001
.235
Chartered/Main
grade
.414
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)

89
Working time outside contracted hours: mornings and evenings
A Kruskal-Wallis test examined whether there was a significant difference in the total amount
of time spent working in the morning and evening outside contracted working hours based on
role in school (collapsed categories). This test showed that there was a significant difference
(χ2 (3, N = 1674) = 38.87, p < .001) with Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons showing
that head teachers and principal teachers did significantly more hours outside school
contracted hours in the week than main grade teachers (ps < .001) After correction for
type one error no other comparisons reached significance (ps => .066).
A repeated measures Friedman’s ANOVA showed that there are significant differences in the
amount of time teachers spent on the different tasks outside contracted hours during the
working week (χ2(16, N = 1662) = 7771.76, p < .001). Pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni
correction showed that these differences were largely driven by more time spent on preparing
resources, planning and marking than the other categories (see figure 16 and figure 17 for
medians and mean values for hours worked).
Figure 16: Median values for hours worked outside contracted hours during the working week
Figure 17: Mean value for hours worked outside contracted hours during the working week

90
Working time outside contracted hours: weekend
There were significant differences in the number of extra hours worked beyond teachers’
contracted hours at the weekend by position (collapsed categories) (χ2 (3, N = 1667) = 15.02,
p = .002). After correction for type one error using a Bonferroni correction the only significant
result found that main grade and principal teachers spend fewer hours working on the
weekend than probationary teachers (ps =< .036). No other comparisons were significant
(ps => .144).
A repeated measures Friedman’s ANOVA showed that there are significant differences in the
amount of time teachers spent on the different tasks outside contracted hours during the
weekend (χ2(16, N = 1661) = 5639.80, p < .001). Pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni
correction showed that these differences were largely driven by more time spent on preparing
resources, planning, marking and report writing than the other categories (see figure 18 and
figure 19 for medians and mean values for hours worked).
Figure 18: Median number of hours worked at the weekend
Figure 19: Mean number of hours worked at the weekend

91
Figure 20: Percentage hours spent on tasks in the morning and evening outside contracted hours by
category and sector.
0.00 1.95 4.10 4.63
2.32
2.54
3.49 3.08
15.01
5.41
5.02 5.41
2.60
2.72
3.03 2.05
6.62
2.94
1.60 1.30
7.49
4.88 4.39 7.68
1.13
1.74 1.96
3.60
3.12
2.67 1.67
0.68
1.13
3.00 3.37
3.87
10.51
5.13 4.88
8.99
1.12
1.30 1.02
1.67
1.03
3.18 0.94
5.43
12.37
6.45
4.41
3.76
2.62
10.33 18.91
1.44
8.08
4.80
6.06
7.84
14.34
22.80
18.17
18.10
10.52
18.16 16.95
20.46
EARLY YEARS PRIMARY SECONDARY SPECIAL
MEAN PERCENTAGE
SECTOR
Preparing Resources
Planning
Data Recording
Marking
Report Writing
Support Plans
Inspection
Communicating with Carers
Behaviour incident follow up
Mentoring
Additional roles
Professional Development
Parent meetings
Other meetings
Email and social media
Other admin tasks
Other tasks

92
Figure 21: Percentage hours spent on tasks at weekend outside contracted hours by category and
sector
Early years Primary Secondary Special
Preparing Resources 13.19 20.06 18.46 20.88
Planning 25.76 32.64 22.02 33.46
Data Recording 5.61 3.31 3.00 4.12
Marking 0.00 7.01 29.91 0.13
Report Writing 24.24 12.46 2.99 10.60
Support Plans 0.00 1.88 0.51 3.56
Inspection 1.07 1.71 1.42 0.76
Communicating with Carers 1.07 1.59 1.61 6.51
Behaviour incident follow up 0.00 0.54 0.44 0.00
Mentoring 0.00 1.18 1.03 0.00
Additional roles 0.00 1.36 1.65 0.74
Professional Development 2.14 4.90 4.33 7.77
Parent meetings 4.55 0.57 0.13 0.00
Other meetings 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.00
Email and social media 16.31 6.25 5.80 4.18
Other admin tasks 0.00 1.80 2.63 1.16
Other tasks 6.06 2.63 3.93 6.14
MEAN PERCENTAGE
SECTOR

93
A Kruskal-Wallis test showed that there was a significant difference (χ2 (3, N = 1674) = 25.91,
p < .001) in the total amount of hours worked between teachers in the working week (out with
contracted hours) by sector. Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons showed that this was
principally driven by primary teachers indicating they worked longer hours than secondary
school teachers (p < .001). After correction for type one error no other comparisons reached
significance (ps => .438).
Similarly, there were also significant differences in the number of extra hours carried out
beyond teachers contracted hours at the weekend by sector as well (χ2 (3, N = 1667) = 11.98,
p = .007). Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons showed that this was also driven by
primary teachers indicating they worked longer hours than secondary school teachers (p =
.005). After correction for type one error no other comparisons reached significance (ps >
.999).
Contract type: full-time and part-time
Further analysis was performed to investigate whether there was a significant difference in the
number of hours spent working outside of contracted hours in the working week and at the
weekend by contract type.

94
Figure 22: Percentage hours spent on tasks in the morning and evening outside contracted hours by
category and contract type
2.90 3.12
3.06 2.58
4.96 6.78
2.92 2.48
2.50 1.67
4.83 4.55
1.90 1.84
2.16 2.28
3.30 2.68
5.24 4.94
1.23 1.04
2.21 2.50
5.69 4.90
13.92
12.84
5.67
4.59
19.96
23.17
17.56 18.04
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
Full time Part time
MEAN PERCENTAGE
CONTRACT TYPE
Preparing Resources
Planning
Data Recording
Marking
Report Writing
Support Plans
Inspection
Communicating with Carers
Behaviour incident follow up
Mentoring
Additional roles
Professional Development
Parent meetings
Other meetings
Email and social media
Other admin tasks
Other tasks

95
Figure 23: Percentage hours spent on tasks in the weekend outside contracted hours by category and
contract type.
Full time Part time
Preparing Resources 20.02 16.71
Planning 28.14 28.50
Data Recording 3.70 1.25
Marking 16.87 13.71
Report Writing 8.19 10.12
Support Plans 1.28 1.60
Inspection 1.63 1.24
Communicating with Carers 1.59 2.38
Behaviour incident follow up 0.49 0.43
Mentoring 1.07 1.08
Additional roles 1.52 1.20
Professional Development 4.54 5.53
Parent meetings 0.41 0.35
Other meetings 0.12 0.15
Email and social media 4.93 10.79
Other admin tasks 2.20 1.75
Other tasks 3.32 3.21
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
Mean percentage
Contract type

96
A Mann-Whitney U test showed that there was a significant difference (U (N = 1667) = 3.14,
p = .002) in the total amount of hours worked between teachers in the working week (out with
contract) based upon contract type with full-time staff working more time outside their contract
within the week than part-time. A second Mann-Whitney U test showed that full-time staff also
spend more time working overtime at the weekend (U (N = 1674) = 7.97, p < .001).
Table 29: Mean, median and standard deviation values for overtime working by contract
Median (Mean)
SD
In the working
week
Full-time
10.00 (12.10)
8.23
Part-time
7.00 (8.54)
5.65
Weekend
Full-time
3.00 (4.08)
4.21
Part-time
2.00 (3.23)
3.27
Regression for year-long workload
A regression analysis was carried out on the Mean amount that teachers felt they did across
the year (1 = far too little, 100 = far too much), using the average across all the year-long
workload questions, utilising the same predictors as the PSS scale. Location, years of
experience and contract type (permanent, temporary) did not correlate with the outcome
measure and so were dropped from the final regression model (presented in table X). The
regression model was significant in predicting year-long workload (F (16, 1573) = 6.96, p <
.001) and explained 5.7% of the variance (adjusted R2). Examination of the coefficients
showed that primary sector teachers felt a higher workload than secondary sector teachers (p
< .001) and special schools (p = .003). Main grade teachers also felt a greater workload than
deputy heads (p < .001) and headteachers (p = .054). Importantly, though number of hours
spent working outside school (within contracted hours) (p = .044), in the morning and evening
outside contracted hours (p < .001) and in the weekend (p = .022) all predicted the perception
of workload levels.

97
Table 30: Predictors of year long workload.
Re-analysis of the findings of the main report when face-to-face is restricted to 22.5
hours and all other contracted activities are restricted to 35 hours.
Kruskal-Wallis when number of hours face-to-face is restricted to 22.5 hours.
A Kruskal-Wallis analyses confirmed significant differences between position in school and
the amount of time, in hours, spent on the face-to-face teaching (χ2 (6, N = 1365) = 210.31, p
< .001).
Table 31: Pairwise comparison on overall face-to-face contact hours differences, restricted
Headteacher
Deputy
head
Principal
Lead
Chartered
Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher
>.999
.025
>.999
<.001
<.001
.004
Deputy
Head
.001
>.999
<.001
<.001
<.001
Principal
>.999
.001
<.001
>.999
Lead
>.999
>.999
>.999
Chartered
>.999
>.999
Main grade
.277
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)
Kruskal-Wallis for hours when number of hours is restricted to 35 hours
A Kruskal-Wallis analyses were carried out examining whether there were significant
differences between those in different teacher positions and the amount of time, in hours, they
spent on the preparation tasks when restricted to 35 hours (χ2 (6, N = 1826) = 22.01, p = .002).

98
Post-hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction showed that principal teachers spent more hours
on this category than main grade teachers.
Table 32: Pairwise comparison on overall preparation contact hours differences, restricted.
Headteacher
Deputy
head
Principal
Lead
Chartered
Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher
>.999
>.999
>.999
>.999
>.999
.821
Deputy
Head
>.999
>.999
>.999
>.999
>.999
Principal
>.999
.928
.088
>.999
Lead
>.999
>.999
>.999
Chartered
>.999
.132
Main grade
.094
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)
A Kruskal-Wallis analyses examined whether there were significant differences between those
in different teacher positions and the amount of time, in hours, they spent on the tasks related
to pupil wellbeing outside class contact time when number of hours was restricted to 35 hours
(χ2 (6, N = 1831) = 264.91, p < .001). Post-hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction showed that
main grade teacher, probationers and chartered teachers spent significantly less hours on this
category than teachers in promoted posts.
Table 33: Pairwise comparison on overall wellbeing contact hours differences, restricted
Headteacher
Deputy
head
Principal
Lead
Chartered
Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher
>.999
.483
>.999
.004
<.001
.023
Deputy
Head
<.001
.387
<.001
<.001
<.001
Principal
>.999
.014
<.001
.286
Lead
>.999
>.999
>.999
Chartered
>.999
>.999
Main grade
.318
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)
A Kruskal-Wallis analyses were carried out examining whether there were significant
differences between those in different teacher positions and the amount of time, in hours, they
spent on tasks outside lessons when number of hours was restricted to 35 hours (χ2 (6, N =
1827) = 155.07, p < .001). Post-hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction showed that main grade
teacher, probationers and chartered teachers spent significantly less hours on this category
than deputy heads). Main grade teachers also spent significantly less time than headteachers
and principal teachers on this category as well.
Table 34: Pairwise comparison on overall activities outside class-contact hours differences, restricted
Headteacher
Deputy
head
Principal
Lead
Chartered
Main
grade
Probationer
Headteacher
>.999
>.999
>.999
.242
.039
>.999
Deputy
Head
.017
>.999
<.001
<.001
.001
Principal
>.999
.038
<.001
.881
Lead
>.999
>.999
>.999
Chartered
>.999
>.999
Main grade
>.999
Probationer
(significant findings in bold)

99
Perceived stress scale follow up and replication.
A regression was also run on the perceived stress scale to repeat the analysis given in
the main report when those who indicated they worked over 22.5 hours face-to-face or
more than 35 hours on other contracted categories (wellbeing etc…) were excluded.
The regression model was significant (F (12, 1179) = 10.31, p < .001) and explained 9% of
the variance (adjusted R2).
Examination of the coefficients showed that teachers in urban settings were more stressed
than those in rural settings (p = .046). Those with fewer years’ experience as a teacher were
also more stressed than those with more (p < .001). Teachers who had more time with face-
to-face commitments were no longer more likely to be stressed than those with less (p = .343).
Most importantly, stress levels were higher in those who spent more time working
outside of their contracted hours in the working week (p <.001) and on the weekend (p
< .001). The standardised coefficients shows that work outside of teachers contracted
hours was the strongest predictor of perceived stress. These results indicate that the
more burdened teachers are with needing to work beyond their contracted hours the more
stressed they will be.
In summary these results suggest that stress is increased by working longer hours outside
contracted hours. Importantly, it shows that there are no differences in stress between those
in different sectors or the position that a teacher held. Instead, this is a universal finding that
those who have to work more, especially outside of their contracted hours, will have a greater
level of general stress in their lives. It is important to note that this is not just stress in relation
to their job but that the workload burden leaves teachers feeling stressed within all aspects of
their lives.
Table 35: Regression model Perceived Stress