A STUDY OFTHEWORKLOAD OFSENI ORHIG HTEACHERSOFENGLISH (LANGUJlr.GE ANDLITERATURE) IN NEWFOUNDLAND ANDLABRADOR
by
QEld redJ. Ba r nes, B. A., B. Ed.
AThes ispre s entedtotheSch oo l of Gra duateStudies in p3..r t ial ful fillme nt of the
requ ireme nts forthe deqree Master ofEduca tio n
Fac ul ty ofEducation Depar tmen t ofCUr ricu lum.and Instruct i on.
Memori al universityofNew!o u ridl llnd
Oc t ob e r 1989
St.John's Newfou ndland
1+1
01 CanadaNational library BibliOlhequenaliol'l3le du CanadaCanadian ThesesService Servicedes meses caoaoennes
Theauthor has grantedan irrevocable non- exclusivelicence allowingtheNationallibrary of canadatoreproduce,loan.distributeorsell copiesof hislher thesis by any means and In any formor format, makingthis thesis available tointerest ed persons.
The authorretainsownershipof the copyright inhisfher thesis.Neitherthethesisnor substantialextractsfromItmaybeprintedor otherwisereproduced withouthis/herper- mission.
L'auteur8accorde unelicenceirrevoc"l.ble at non exclusive permettantalaBibliotheque nationateduCanadadereprodulre.preter . distribuerauvendre des copies de sathese dequelque manereateous quelque forme que ce soit pour mettre des exemplairesde cette these aladispositiondes personnes interessees.
L'auteur conservetapropnetedu droit d'auteur quiprotegesathese. Nilatheseni desextralts substanuelsde ceue-ctnedolvent ~tre lrnprlmes ou autrementrecrcduits sansson autorisation.
ISBN O-J 1 5 -592 46 -X
Canada'
1Icknowledgeme nts
This thesis is the culmination of four years of investi- gation into aspects of English teacher workload, particularly the wor-k.Loedconditions of senior high English teachers In Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to thank the 119 English teachers who respondedto my lengthy survey. Thank you as well to the individuals and groups who sUbmitted letters to the NTA English Special Interest Council Committee (1985). The primary data from the letters and from the survey respondents were essential to this at.udy , Itrust this thesis willin some way benefitthose English teachers who strive to prov idea quality education to students in our province.
Thank you to my wife, cathy, for making certain one of us was there to share the magic momentswithour two children.
Herenc our a geme nt and support cas kept this stUdyalive.
Tha nk you to Robert Dawe for his selfless contribution to the senior high Englishprogram and to Englishteachers
.across the province. His work withthe NTA EnglishCouncil
Co mmit t e e (198 5 ) was outstanding. His contribution to my growth as a classroom teacher iswithou t parallel. Thanks for so many Christmas trees.
Thank you to David Jones and to Jennifer Peet, whos e enthusiasmfor learning and assistance withthe preparation of thisstudy is greatlyappreciated.
i i
Thank you to LindaWate rton of Trius Word Proce s s in g Services fo r typing thi s studyand to r tolerat ing lIle in the final days.
I extend my deep gr a ti tude to Dr . Fran k ~olfe for supervisingthe de ve lo pment ofthis thesis. His patience, assist a nce andtr e me ndous ins i gh t keptthisstud y from dying in itsinf an c y . Hisfaithin and gen u in e conce r nfor Eng11sh teachersinthis pr ovinceis invigorating. Ishall be fore ve r thankful forhi s suppo r t andtha t of hi s wife, Maureen.
Finally, thankyou toJa s onandMeggie forbringingne w me an ingand enric hment to mylife daily. It is for themand for allthechildren likethem who presentthe mse l ve s at our classroom doo r s tha t th i sthesis is wr itt en .
iii
Abstract
The purpose or this study ....as to investigate the workload conditions of senior hi g h teachersotEnglish (La ngua ge and Literature) inthe provinceof Newfoundlandand Labrador. The workload concerns voicedby English t.e e c he r-s at annual confere ncesofthe NTA Engli Shspe cialInteres t council and, part i c ul a r ly,the conce rn s ra ise dbyEng li s hteac he r s in the ir writte n submissions to the Eng li sh Council Committee on Workl oad (1985) suggested a needto conduc t a .... mprehe nsive, indept h investigation into the workload of the province's senior high Englishteachers.
The focus ot this study was limited to se nior high Englishte a c he r s inNewtound landandLabrador. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to: (a) determine the degree to which a problem. ....ith workload existed among se ni o r high Englis hteachers: (b) examine factors believed to be contri- buting to a workload problem: (c) examine the natu re of English as a discipline.mdthe na ture of the Engli s hteacher as factors contributingto workload; and (d )gatherinforma - tion re ga r ding the impact of workl oad upon the Eng liSh tea cher, upon his/her teaching, and upon the quality of Eng li sheduc ationprovide d to seni orhighst Ude nt s.
Data for the stUd y were obtained through a survey pre pare d bythe investiga to r and ad mi n i ste r edtosen i orhi qh
iv
English teachers in the smallest and the largest scho ol in each of the province's thirty-fiveschool districts .
Cha p te r I prov i d es a st a temen t of the probloll, the invest i gator' s hypo t he ses and assumpt ions, and the signi fi ~ canc eof tj-estudy.
Cha pte r II re views the literature related to Englis h teacher workl oad, particularl y at the pr ov i nci al lev el.
Cha pter II also includesa sectionon thedeve Lopmerrt. ofthe provincialEnglish cu r r i c ulum. Theintent i o n ofth i ssec t i o n was toprov i de the background tothe prese ntph il osophyand met ho ds of ins-tr ucting and eva l uat i ng courses wit hin the reorganized senior high English program. The evidence prov ided demo ns t ra t e s an "evoluti on"of thepresentphilosophy and me thodol ogie s as opposed to an abrupt chang e with the intr od uc t ionofthe reorga nizedhighschool in 1981.
Cha p t e r II I out line s the me thodo l ogy of the survey inc lud i ng the su rvey design, descriptio n of the sa mpl e popul at.Lon and the tr eatment of data. Ato tal of 119 senior high Englishteacherscompleted surveys , at least onebei ng fromea c h schoo l districtinthe provi nce .
ChapterIVprov id e s ananalysisofthedemograph i cda t a and of each it e min the main sectionof the su rv e y, a tota l of 73 items . Descriptive stat i st i c s include dcal c ula t ionof per c en tages, mean, medi a n, modeand rangeforvariou s it e ms.
Distribution tab l e s were providedto assist the anal y sis. The analysis of the data demonstrateda workl oad pro blem among
seniorhigh E,n9lish tea c he r s andshowedthat several factors in combina tioncontrib ut e toa wor kloadprobl e m. Chapt er IV also showed that the pr esent work load situati o ns of senior high English teach e rs isbelieved to be ad ve r sel y affecting the qualityof educationpr ov i ded to stude nts.
Chapterv examinesthe "uni que" oc cuce of Engl i s h as a disci plineand, likewise, thenece ssarynatureof theEnglish teacher as an "i nt e r pr e t ati on teacher . " The resea rch cited makes clear the special nature of English and the English teacher,\1hich inevitablyimpacts upo n the wor k l oa d of English teachers .
ChapterVI provides a more detailed discussion of the findings documented in Chapte rs IV and V. Impo r t a n t con- clusions are stat ed regard i ng workload and its impact upon bothseniorhigh English te a c he r s andthesenior hi gh English program.
Chapter VII provides 26 recommendations wi t h appropriate explanations ,inclUdingthejuri sdi c tio n of re spons ibi li t yin termsof theirimp lem e nta tio n . The recommendationsar eaimed at prov idinga de s i r a b l e workloadfor sen iorhi g h te ache rs of English. Sev en suggestio ns for furth er stUdy are also pr ov i d ed .
vi
Table of contents
Acknowledgements Abstract Listof 'remee CHAPTER
Pag e i l iv vii
II
INTRODUCTI ON The Problem
Sig nificanc e of the study Hypotheses
Assumpti t,ns
Needfo r Resear chat theLocal revet Limitationsand Scope of theStud y De fi nitio n ofTerms
A REVIEWOF REVELJr.NT LITERATURE
10 10 11 12 15 15 17
Introduction 17
Section A:General perspective 17
Section B: Prov incialPerspective 31 Section c:Evolutionof Eng li s h Curriculum
in Ne wf ound land and Labrador 47
III METHODOLOGY 55
Research DesignandSa mpl i ngPr oc e d ur e 55
The Instrument 57
validity of Instrument 58
Treatmentof Data 59
Assumptions 60
vii
6J 6J 61 CHA PTE R
IV
Scope and Limitations ANAL YS IS, RESULT S
Ra t eof Return
oeecript Icn of DemographicData
from the Sample 64
Summary of Demographi c Da t a 86
Analysis of Indi vidual It e ms 87
Workload Problem 88
Number-of OifferentCo urses Ta ug ht 91
specificCoursesTau g ht 94
Classsi ze 98
Total Numberof CoursesTau g ht 105
Numberof Student Contacts 110
The Reorganized HighSc hool Program 111 Adequacy of CourseDescriptions 117
Adequacyof Text Materials 122
Suitabilityof ReferenceMaterials 126 Adequacyof Support Personnel 129
Pr e para t i on of Courses 135
Roleof Co-CurricularActivit ies 138 Workloadand Family Life, Professional
nevet opnent. ,SocialLife and
Community Involve ment 146
Workload andQualityof Education 149
Workload and Job Satisfaction 155
viii
CHllPTER
THE NATDRE OF ENGLISHANDTHE
VI
ENGLISHTEACHER CONCLUSI ON Demog r aph ic Data Workload Problem Teaching Lo a d
Class SizeandStudent Contacts The Reorganized Senior High. Program
160 172 172 174 174 193 194
20J Role of Support Person nel 196
Summar yof Factors Contr i but in g to Wo':."kload
Impact of Workloadand FamilyLife , sroreee icnef Deve lopment, Social Life
and CommunityInvolvement 204
Qualityof Educationand Job Sat i s f action 207
summa ry 212
VII RECOMMENDATIONS
'"
suggestions for FurtherStu d y Bibliography
Appendices
2JJ 238
AppendixA Appendix8 Appendix C Appendix0 Appendix E
- correspondence andsurve y - Objectivesof CourseDescript ions
List of Tables
- samplePublicExaminations Listof Returnsuy School Board
ix
245 255 265 J4J 334
AppendixF
Appendix G
- Te x~books/NoV el S/5k i ll sAnalys is- craees9 - 12
- Aims and Objectives of Languageand Liter at ure , 1940
365
373
Lis t ofTabl e s
Page
Tab le 4.1 Total Sample , Item 3(i) 65
Table4.2 Large Sc h o o l Sample, Item3 (i) 66 Tab le••3 Sma llSc h o o l Sa mp l e,Item3 (i) 67
Table
...
Total Sampl eI Item3(iii ) 70Tab l e ••S Lar g eSch o olsampl e, It em3(iii) 71 'l'abl e '. 6 SmallSchool sample, Item 3(i i i ) 72 Ta b l e '.7 To talSa mp l e , Item3(v) 7' Talbe 4. 8 LargeSchoolSamp l e ,Item 3(v) 76 Tab l e
. ..
Sma llSc h o olSamp l e, Item 3(v) 77 Ta b le 4.10 Total Sample , rce n 3(vii) 79 Ta b le 4.11 La rg escn o ot Sample, Item3(vii ) 80 Tab le 4.12 SmallSc h o olSample , Ite m 3(vii) 81Table 4.13 Total Sample , Item 3(v i ii) 83
Table 4.1 4 Large Schoo l Sample, Item3(v iii) 84 Table4.15 Sma ll School Sa mp l e , Item 3(viii ) 85
Table 4.16 Total sanpte, Item4 89
Table 4.17 Large Sample, Item 4 90
Table 4.18 SmallSa mp l e, Item 4 90
Table 4.19 Totalsample, Item5 92
Table 4.20 Large sample, Item5 9J
Table 4.21 Small Sample, Item 5 93
Tabl e4. 22 Total Sampl e , Item 7 99
Tilble 4.23 Large Sample, Item 7 99
Table 4.24 Smal lSample, Item7 10 1
xi
Ta:ble 4.25 Total sampj.e , Item ae 102
Table 4.2 6 Total Sample, Item 8b 103
Table4.27 Total Sample, Item ac 10 '
Table 4.28 TotalSample, Item 9 106
Table4.29 Large sample, Item 9 107
Table4.30 Small Sample, Item 9 10 8
Tab le 4.31 Total Sample, Item 11
"'
Tab le4. 32 Large sample, Item 11 114
Table4. 33 Small sample, Item11
"'
Ta b le 4.3 4 Total sample, Iteml2 a 26'
Table4.35 Large sample, Item l2 a 266
Tabls4.36 Small Sample, Item 12a 267
Table4.3 7 Total Sample,Item 12b 268
Table 4.3B LargeSa mp l e , Item12 b 26.
Table4.39 Small sample.Item 12b 270
Ta b le4.4 0 Total Sample, Item 12c 271
Table 4.41 Large Sample, Item 12c 272
'!ab lo 4.42 Small Sample, Item 12c 273
Tab le 4.43 Total Sample, Item 13a 274
Table "'.44 TotalSample, Item13b 27'
Table4.4 5 Total samp le, Item13c 276
Tab l e4.46 Total sample, Item 13d 277
Table4.47 Total Sample , Item13 e 278
Tab l e4.4B Total Sample, Item 13f 27'
Table 4.49 Total Sample, Item13 g 280
Table 4.50 Total sample, Item13 h 281
xii
Table4.51 TotalSample, Item13i 282
Table 4.52 Total Sample , Item 13j 283
Table4.53 Total Sample, Item 13k 284
Table4.5 4 Tota l Sample, Item131 285
Table 4.55 Total sanpro, Item13m 28 6
Table 4.56 TotalSample, Item l3h 2 "
Table4. 57 TotalSample, Item130 288
'l'able 4.58 Total Sample, Item 14a 289
Tab le 4.5 9 To t a l Sample, Item14b 29 0
Table 4.60 Tota l Sample, Item14c 291
Table 4.61 Total Sample, Item14d. 2 "
Tab l e 4.62 Total sample, Ite m14e 29 3
Tab l e 4.63 Total Sample, Item14£ 294
Table 4.64 Total Sample, Item 14g 295
Table4.65 Total Sample, Item14h 296
Table 4.66 Total Sampl e, Item14 i 297
Table4.67 Total Sampl e, Item l4j 298
Table 4.68 TotalSample, It em 14k 299
Table4.69 Total Sample, Item 14 1 300
Table4.7 0 Total Sample, Ite m 14m 301
Tab le4. 7 1 Total sample, Item 14n 302
Table 4.72 TotalSa mp l e , It e m 14 0 303
Table 4.73 Total Sample, Item15a 304
Table 4.74 Large Sample, It em15a 30 5
Table4.75 Small Sample, Item 15a 306
Tabl(! 4.7 6 Total sample, Item ISb 307
xii i
Table
".77
LargeSample,It e mISb 308Tabl e e,78 Sma llSample, It em 15b 309
Table 4.79 TotalSa mple, It em15c 310
Table4.80 LargeSlImple, It em 15c 311
Table4.81 Sma ll sampl e, It emlSc 312
Table 4.82 TotalSa mp l e, Item 15d 313
Table 4.t3 Large Sample, Ite m 15d 31.
Table 4.84 Small sample , Item lSd 315
Table 4.85 Tot al sampl e, Itetl15e 31'
Table 4.86 LargeSample, It em 15e 317
Table 4.87 Smal l Sampl e, Ite. 15 e 318
Table 4.88 Tot al Sample , rtee 1St 31.
Tabl e 4. 89 Large sa:nple, Item 1St 32.
Table 4.90 SmallSamp le , Item15f 321
Table 4.91 Tota l Sample, Item17 322
Table4.92 LargeSampl e, Item17 323
'l'able 4.9J Small sample, Item17 32.
Table 4.94 Tot alSampl e, It em ra e 325
Ta ble 4.95 Largesample, It em18a 32'
Tabl e 4.96 SmallSamp l e , Item 18a 327
Table4. 97 TotalSample, Item lSb 328
Table 4.98 Large sample, Item ISb 32.
Table4.99 Sma ll sample, Item lab 330
Table 4.10 0 TotalSampl e, It em 19
13.
Ta ble 4.10 1 Lar geSamp le, Item19
14.
Table 4. 10J Sma ll Samp l e, Item 19
14.
xiv
Tab l e 4.10 3 Total sample, !tern 20 141
Table4.104 Large Samp le, Item20 142
Tab l e 4.1 0 5 Small sample, Item 20 143
Table4.106 Total Sample, !tern21 144
Table 4.107 La r ge Samp le, It em21 145
Table 4.108 Small Sample, Item 21 145
Tab l e4.1 0 9 Total Samp l e , Item22a 331
Table4.1 10 Large sampl e, Item 22a 332
Tab le4.111 Small Sampl e, Item 22a 333
Table4.1 1 2 Total sample, Item 22b 334
Table4.113 Largesamp l e , Item22b 335
Tab l e4.11 4 Sma ll Sample, Item 22b 336
Ta bl e 4.1 15 Total Samp le, Ite m 22c 337
Table ...116 Large Sample , Ite m22c 338
Ta b l e4.1 17 SmallSample, Item22c 33.
Table 4.1 18 To talSample, Item 22d 340
Ta b l e 4.119 Large Sampl e, Item 22d 341
Table 4.120 Small samp le, Item 22d 342
Tab l e 4.12 1 Tot al Sample , Item23 151
Tabl e 4.122 Larg e Samp le ,It e m 23 151
Ta bl e 4.123 Sma llSample, Item 23 152
Ta b l e " 124 To tal Samp l e, It em24 153
Tab le 4.12 5 Larg esample , Item 24 154
Table".12 6 SmallSampl e , Ite m 24 154
CH1Ir.PTERI Int ro du c tion
James Britton(1981),speaking to the Third International ConferenceonThe Teachingof Englishhe l d atthe Univers ity of sydney,Austral i a, in1980 said:
Ifthi s werenot anassembl ybut a more convivial occas ion, I sh ould ask younow, ....ith "English in the Eigh ties" inmi nd, to rai s e your gla s s e s and drinka toast to thedecad e of th etea c her. As we have developed ourviewof lear:1inq as interac tive, of the curriculumas negot iable: we haverecog n iz-ed the drama ticeff ect ofintention upon performance- - by teac hersaswell as byst udent s: as it ha s be c ome cle a r th at teachingconsi s t sof ecae ne-by- moment intera cti ve beha v i ou r, behaviour that can on l y springfrominnerconv i ction--I th i nk wear e, perhaps for the first ti me,ready to admittha t what th e te a c h e r ca n't do in the class room ca n't be achIeved byany othermeans.. . I see a vi tal role for Admin i str ato r s , once it is re a lizedtha t they areteacher suppo r t e r srath er than buildingsuperin- tendents or systems ana l ysts.- and teachersupport meanshelping teac he rs to lea r n as well as he lping the" to teach. (p, l,j)
senior high teachers of English in Newfoundland and Labrador have witnessed significant changes since Britton (1981) spoke these words. The implementation of a, nev reorganized senior high program has seen 15 core English (Li t e r a t ur e and Language) courses, spread over a threeyear program, replace the four core Eng lishcourses (two general and tvc academic) of the prev ious eve-yearprogram. Major changesin conten t andshifts in methodologyacc o mpani e d the new program.
Many English teachers seemed to greet these changes somewhat enthusiastically at first, believing the new system to be a significantand necessary steptowa r d a higherquality English program. The addition of 11 courses to the senior high English program and significant changes in methodology and ins t r u c tion suggested a serious attempt to provide a qual ity program. However, after several years W'ith a new curriculum firmly in place, the reality of deliveringthe present senior highEnglishprogram has created a significant current of dissatisfaction. The preparation time, the appropriate class sizes,and the support staff and in-service essentialin delive ringthe new courses have not been forth- coming to the degree vital for an effecti ve,qualityEnglish program.
Now, with the 19805 decade drawing to a close, ...itha new curriculum negotiated, for many English teachers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador it has not yet been the
"dec ade of the teacher". Instea d , it ha sbeena deca de of frustr ation".The rol eof the seniorhighEngl i shteacherhas change dsignificantl y , but not in line ...1th the philos ophy of Britton(1991). Host English teachers in this provincewould like l y agre e withBritton that ,"te ach i ngcons i s t s ofmOlllen t- by-moment interactive behav i our , beha viour that can only spring from in ne r conviction" (p. 10). Yet, thevoi c e s of Eng lishteach ers-- at meetingsof the Newfound landTeacher's Association's (NTA) English council, at local and re gi onal workshopsandat ot h e r formaland inf ormal gatherings-- are ri ng i ng out loud lytheove r t o nes offr us tra t ion , of di s s a t i s- facti on , of di si llusionment. Moral eamong Eng li s hteac hers in the Prov inc e of Ne wfoundland and Lab rado r appears to be reaching asig nitic a n t 10....
The reas on most oftengiven for the present state of frustrat ionamo ng En glis h teachers can be summarizedlargely under the wo r d "workload.II WrittenSUbmi s sions by English teacherstothe NTA English Special Inte restCouncil Committee onWorkload (l 985) sugg es t that the presentwo r kl oa d ofmany Engli s hte a ch e r s is suchthat bot h the tea che randthepr ogra m (therefore the st Ud e nt s ) are suffering. The follo...ing excerptsfrom le t tersto the NTA English Councilfr o mvar io u s ar e a s of the provi nc e re ve a l the frust ratio ns and work load si tuatio ns otEng lis h.teache r s:
Weprepare classes,supervise"everything ",organize and run allco-cu r ricu l a rac t i vi t i e s ,coac hat h let i c te ams , andma k e ourschool a community. All of us dothesethings,but there is one add i t ional aspect tothe teaching of English which is devouring my timean d energy-- ma r ki ng ! ... Allteach ers have corre ct i ngtodo, but they do no t have suchvol ume no r dotheytreatit withsuchattention tode t a il. Engli s h teachersmust read every word ...I don't knowhowEnglish teachers willsurv ive, unle ssthey refus e tomark the work (which woul d be extremely unpr ofe s s i ona l )orgetout of thearea . (Tea cher in st. Joh n's)
I te a c hLangu age and Literat ure fr o m grade 7- 12...Thisis a positionwithno scheduledprepar- ati on time, and has a total numbe r of eighteen doub l e class peri ods ..• Anopportunity toget a breakhardly ever occurs in myached u Le , Precious li ttl e time can be reserved for the "luxury" of enjoyablereading . (Te a l.!he r inLabrador)
I cannotcollectwork frommy students and give it the individualattention required. I centt;teach the research process to 29 students while dealing wi t h the wri ti ng process with 35 potential
Universitystudentsand trying to motivate 52 Level Ist ude nt s in the area of ....ritten and oralcommuni- cat ion. That'sa lie! I can handle that muchbut ....hat about the 25Thematic Literaturestudents and the54 Canadian Literature students , not to mention the 29 Religionstudents thro....n in for good measure.
On top of this I am expected to co-ordinate the Engl ish Departmentfrom Grade 6 to Level III. All thi sduri ng a time whe n mySc ho o l Board is demanding tha t as a Department Head I become more involved as a pa r t of the MANAGEMENTTEAM. I'mtold I should be planning and decision-making aore than ever at the AdministrativeLevel. Where doI fi nd tne time, not to mention the energy? . . . (r e ecb e r from Sout he r n Shore)
My present allocation gives me teaching responsi- bilities in Languageand Literature from grade eight to grade t etve with approximately 180 students: th i s is do n this year from 225 prev iously. Two years ago my English colleagueand I ....ere forced to revamp our established teaching style. Where formerly we had evaluated after eve ry unit or con cepttaught, it became necessary to conscto u o ty cut back to fi v e pieces of evaluation per t.ern, Even with this reduction each of '..IS was still left
to copewith over2,25 0 separate papersto correct.
(Te a c he r inGand e r )
I, a normally healthy pe r s o n, spent most ofla s t year quiteill. I caught a virus inOct o be r never recoveredcompletely be c ause of severe exhau s t i on and succumbed to two badflues and two bouts of la r yngitis. My Doctor has tol d me she has seen other teachers in a similarstate ...The stress of numbers of courses, numbers of students , the tltreadmilltl of "4011periods , days without spares le a di ng to pile- upsof marking and poorlyprepared lessons is gettingto be unbearable.. . six out of every seveneve n ingsof theweekI do some school work sca ec Inee seven out of seven. I ha d six compl e t e l y free weekends la st year...Is it any wa ndel' tha t manyteachersarelooking for a wayout?
Oneof myfr i e nd s retired early. Anotherleft for a newprofession; two others arelooki ng for ways toeither teachpart-timeor to get out altogether.
IfI hav e anothe r year like last year, I will ha ve todo the same. (Teache r in st.Johnts)
As theabovequotationsindicate,manyEnglishee a c ne r s believe it isvir t u al ly impossible to prepare qua litylesson plans, tomo t iva t e stUdents, to provide adequatecont in uous
eva luat io n and the immediate feed ba c k es s en tia l for the ef f e c tive deli very of a programthat stres ses writ ingas a process. Hany feel the "moment-by-moment- int e r a c ti on is suf f e r i ng. Added to thi s,the ea c unt;ofout-of-c l a s s prepa r a- tion and mar ki ng is claimed to be havi ng a signifi c a nt ne g ativ e impact on th e quality of home lif e for Engli sh teachers. As well,li t tleif any time remains available for pr o f essionalreading, for keeping abreastof new the or i esand innovationsinEnglisheducation.
The concern of th i s investiga tor lies with English teachers in the Prov i n ceof Newfoundla nd and Labrador. Are theind ica t ions of a workloadpr ob l e mamongEnglishteachers , as expre s sed or allyand as expr e s s e d in writt e n sUbmi ss ions to':.hf~NTA English Spe c i a l InterestCoun c il ,widespr e a d? I f so, what spe c ificall y ar e th e effects of awo rkl oa d problem amo ng English teachers having upo n the quality of their teaching ? uponthe quality of their home life? uponthe i r pr ofe s siona l development? Is the "spir it- of the English te a c h e r in Newfoundland andLabr ador sinking un d e r theburden ofdelive r i r.gthese n i or hif;hEnglishprogram? Suc h question s war r antintensi ve inv e st i gat i o n.
But the concern of thi s invest igato r in e vita b ly moves beyond the well-be in g of Engli sh te a ch ers. tayto n (1977) wrote:
It isus ua l l y froma tea c he r thata child cat c he s his t'irst glimps e ofha rm o nyor wisdomandgets hi s first hintof the intellectua l adventurewhichmay engage him forthe rest of hi s life. Butfor a teache r to commun i cat e thevis i on of thego o d life, hemust t'irs t hav e tha t visionhimself •. • only by purs uing kno wl'!d.,re ,that is,byconstant.lyenlarg ing his own inte llec tual horizons, can the teacher re t a i n his original freshnessand enthusi asm. (p.
146)
When teach e r s los e their motivation and ince nti ve to chan g e, to grow, or when teac hers throw up their hands in frustr atio n . it is st u d ents wh oaiss thei r chanceto rea li z e the irpot ential. Host studentshave theresi dual capaci t yto riseto thereve r ofexpecceeL cn,to meetstanda r d s andgoals. and to re a lhe pot e nt i a l . Howe ve r , they need teac her swho havethe time.thesens i t ivi ty, thecre ativity,th e enthus ia s m to elicitthat hu man potential. I fEnglish te a ch e r s donot possess the spirit,the vigor, the inter estto help students as the y COUld , it becomes difficul t to maintaina quality Englishprogram wh ichstressessucheducational objective s as
"the writingpr ocess"and "readerrespons e" .
Friesen (1970) co n c lu de d thatthere is"a rela t ionship beteen a teacher' s mo r ale and te achingefficiency" {p,H). He t;mtontopoint ou t that asthe tea cher lo a dincreas e s,
of t~e pr ov i n c eIs th e possibility ot at t ai ni!1g educ at ional goals decrea s e s . Clearly , i~ light of the ev i dence reveale d in lette r s and th roug h oral submissi ons , there is a ne edto exeafneclosely the role of English teachers in thisprov i nce. The "ne w"
senior hi gh English programha s been in place fo!:'altlost a decade. Yet , this inves t i g a to r could not rind any pUbli s he d review, evaluationor appr a isal. It is thi s autboxvsund e r- standing tha t the Department of Educa tion con ducted an
"e p pr etser" of the Program ar o un d 198 5 but th is autho r was
unable tofi nd theresul t s oftheappr a isaL Workloadcondi- tions of teache r sgene rallyin theprov i ncehasbeenapUbli- cizedco ncern since the ons e tof the :-e-o rg a nizedSeniorHigh.
As a resu lt of theCollec t i veA~ (1983 ) forNewf ound- landte ac he r s, a spec i a l Tas k Forc e onteache r wo r kloadwa s created and severa l init ia t ive s taken by the prov i n cia l Go vernment and the NTA fol lowing the Report or the Tas k Force onTea c he rWorkload (Harc h , 198 4). These initia t ive s , ....hic h aredo cumen tedin grea te r detai linChapter II, didno t ta ke in t o cons ideration the specific
sen io r highEngliShteachers.
Th e purposeof thi s study , there fore, isto inve s t i gate the roleofse nior hi ghEng lishtea ch e r s in Newfou n dla nd and Labr ado r, sp e c i fical l y asp ectsof workload. Thro ugha review of the lit e ra t ure andthrough an analys i s of a surve y of se l ec t ed se n i orhigh Englishteac hers around the prov i nc e, variou s aspectsof English teach er work loadar e ex a mined and
10 reccn een da t.I c nsfor the improvement of workload conditions for senior highEnglish teachers are provided.
signi ficanceof the study
I'ne findingsrega rding wo r k l oa d of English teachers can be utilized bi' decision-makerswi t h i n tihe provincial Govern- ment's Department of Education. The findings can also be '.ltilized by schooladministratorsanddistrictlevel admini- strators in developing teaching sche d ule s and undertaking evalua tion of English teachers. As...ell, the NTA and their EnglishspecialInt e r e s t counc -'tcan utilize the findingsof this report in their ongoing concern for the welfare of Englishteachers inth i s province.
Hypotheses
Havingre v i ewe d relevant literaturerelated toworkload andthe English teacherand, having analyzed writteneubsue- sions to the NTA English Council rega rding wor k load , this inv e s t i ga t o r has formula ted th e followi nghypothese s:
1. That teachers of seniorhighEng lish (Languageand Literature )in the provinceof Ne wfou nd landand Labrado r have serious problemswith workload and are experiencing diffi- culties effectivelydelivering the presentseniorhigh English program.
11 2. That pr oble ms wit h workl o ad experienc ed by senior high Eng l i s h teachers stemfromsevera l fac torswh i chareopen to inv e s tigation.They Incjude:
thenumber of di f f e r entcourses ta ug ht the numbe r ofstU de nts in~clas s thet..QUlnumber of regular student contac ts theamoun t oftime for nece ss ary pr-epara tiLcninside and outside sc hool hours
the amount of timereq u ired to correctstude nt's work the adequacy or:textsand re f erence material the adeq uacyof cour s e descri pt i on s the ade quacy of suppor t staf f
the ro l e of co-curric u l a ract ivit ies
the introductionof a reo rga niz edsenio r highEnglish cur riculum
the na tu r e ot En glish as adiscipline the natureof theEngli~hteache r
Assumpt i o n s
In additio ntothe fa c t o r s hy pothes ize d a..cont ributing to a workload prOblem among EngliSh teach ers, the follo wing assumpt ions are made:
1. That a workload pro blemamongEnglish teachers is havLnq a sig nif i c ant effect up on th e quality of their teaching.
12 2. That a workloadproblemamong Eng li shteachers is having a significant effect upo n the qu a lity of ed u c a t ion stud e n t s arer~ceiv lng in the provinc e of Ne wf oun d l a nd and Lab r a d o r .
3. That a workloadproblem among Eng lishteachers in this province is ha vinga significanteffect upon the quality of their home life, theircommunity involvement,their professional development.
Need for Research at t.he Local Le v e l
The voices of Englis h te a c he r s .- at meetings of their NT.\ EnglishCouncil.at'Jo r ksho p s an docne r formalgatherings --ringoutovert o ne s of frustrationand dissat isfaction wit h their workload. Writ t e n submission~ to the NTA EnglIsh cou nc i l ec ho thesesame overtones. However , a rev iew of the lit e r a t u r e did not rev e a l any prev ious inve s tig a t i o n Ll Newf o undland and Labrador. Luedicke (19 74) investigated aspects of workloadgenerally among te a c h e r s in Newfoundland and Labrador. Whilepartof his thesisdealt withthe English teacher (h is findings are documented in Chapter II), Leud icke '5 scope re a c h e d be y on d the English te a c h e r. As pr e v i o us lyment ioned, asig ni f i cantamoun tofwor k was carr ied out by an NTA/Governmen tTask Forcewhichgr ew outof the NTA Collective Agreeme nt (1983). Their work to date has co ns i d ere d thecl a s s roo m teach ergenerallybut hasnot focused specificallyon the concernsof the Engli sh tea c h e r. Ev idence
13 of workload prob lem s, along with the lack of local da ta, promp ted th is investig a t o r to undertake a survey of sen i o r high English tea cher s in selected school s arou ndthepr ovinc e in order to gatherdata regardi ngas pe cts of Englishtea c her wor k l oa d at theseniorhigh level.
The review ofthe literatureon teacherworkloajand on theroleof the Englishtea cher pr ovide d valuableinsig htinto the natureof the Eng lish tea c he r and the natu re of English asadisci pline. Find ings regarding the natur eofEnglis has a disciplineand thenat ure of the English te ac heral o ng with the implications for workload areincl ud e d in ChapterFi ve. These two asp e cts of English teacher workl oad were left out s i de thescope of thiswrite r ' s localsurv e y.
A reviewof the lite ratureal ong with the writ tensub- mi s s i ons tothe UTA English Council pr ov i de d theauthor with valua bl e suggest ionsas to spec ificitellls thatshould comprise a survey ofEng lis h teachers in Newfoundlandand Labrado r. A survey was designed to investigate the following :
1. "Teach ingload"of the English te a c her. The term
"t e a c hi ng load" is usedinthe sense inwhich it was defined by the Canadian Teac hers' Fe de ra t i on. A "Re por t of The Nationa l Confere nceonCo nd iti o ns of Employmen t forTeac he rs"
(1973 )assertedth~t:
Tea<.hingloa d differs from cl ass loa d intha t it includ e sall the timeand actidtiesof the staff
14 member in carrying out hisassi gnmen t. Boththose.
dutiesdirectlyand indi rectly relate d toins t ruc- tion are eubr-e c e d in this term. Thus extra - curricu la r activiti es, cor recti ng papers, super- visory respon s ibilities mus t be part of te a c h ing load. (p. 1)
2. The effec t of cla sssizeon workload.
3. The effec t of there orga ni z e d seniorhighEng lish curricu l umon workload of the. Engli s h teac her.
4. Thesuitabilityor adequacyof support material(the fifteen course descriptions, va rioustextbooksandrefer ence materials).
5. The adequacy of support personnel (depar tmenthead, program co-ordinator, NTAorboa rd administrators).
6. The ef fe cts of te a ch ingEnglishon the quality of homeli f e, socialli f e , pr ofessional de v e l opme n t andcommunity involveme nt.
7. The "state " of job conte ntment amo ng Engl ish te ac he rs.
A surveywasdesigne dandadmi n iste r edto a re present a- tive sample of Englishteachers from across the province of Newfound land and Labrador (see Appe nd i x Afo r the complete co p yof the sur vey) . Adeta il e d met h od ol ogy of the surve y des ignandsampling proc e d u r e is foun d in Ch a pte r III.
15 Limitations~ndsc o p e ofthe Stu dy
The scope of th i sstud yis limitedto aninv e s tiga tion intothe workl o ad cr senior hig h English teachers in the prov ince of New f oundl and and Lab r ad o r. Re s ul t s maynot be indi c a t iveof thesta te of English andEnglishteachersin the Intermediate or Elementary schools of Newfoundla nd and Labrador. Resul t s may not be ind i c ative of the state of English and English teachers in other province s or other co unt ri e s.
Definit ion of Terms
Forthe purp oses of thisstudythe follow ingde fi n i t ions ap p l y:
Eng li sb Tea ch er. An indi v idualhol d i ng avalid teach i ng ce r t ifi c a t e andwho is emp loye dto instruc t studentsin.QM ormor ecoursesin Lanqua ge and/orLitera ture intheprov ince of Ne....foundland and Labrador.
Te a c he r workload . The total time require d insi de and outsidethe classroomtoperform the varied ta s k s forWhich tha t teacher is held responsible. Theterm "....orkload"is used synonymously ....ith the term "t e a ch ing load."
Ce nt.ralHigh School. Aschool that. exclusivelyaccom- modates stude nts in grades Seven thr o ugh Twe l ve ( Leve l III) inclusive, or gradesEight thr o ug h'rvetvettevet III) Inct u- sive.
re Regional HighSchool. A school that exclusive lyaccom- modates students ingr a des Nine th r o ugh Twelve(Level III), gradesTe n through rwet vert.eve t III ) inclusive.
se n ior High School. A school that exc l us i vely mod a tesstude nts inLevelI throu ghLevel III inclus i ve .
All-GradeSchooL A schaoltha t exc l u s i v e l y accommoda tes students in Ki nd e r g art e n through grad e Twelve(Level III) inc lus iv e.
Small Schoo l. Aschoolwithineach of the provi nce' s thirty-fi veschool districts(as of 1987) identifie dthroug h th e Newfoundland and Labrador Departmen t of Education Directo r y 1986-1987as havingthesmall estseniorhighschool popu latio n .
Large School. A school withi n ea c h of the province's thi rtY-five sc ho o l di s tricts (as of 198 7 )ide nt ifiedthro ugh the Newfoundl and andLabradorDepa rtment of Educationpi rect -
ory 1986-198 7 as havi ng the ~ senior high sch oo l
st u den t populat ion.
17 CHAPTER II
A Rev i e wof Releva ntLiterature
In t roduc t io n
Chapter I of this report highlighted the workload con- cerns of se ni o r highEngliSh te a c he rs. Thischapte rprovides a rev i ewofre l e vant litera turerelated to English te ac he r workload. The Cha pter is div ided into thre e sections.
secti onAhighlightssignificant studiesonteache rworkload outside the province of Newfoundland and La b r a do r . Even thoughthe primary focus of thi s study is upon aspects of workloadamon g senior highEnglish tea c h e r s inthepr ov i nce of Newfoundland and Labrador, a broader searchof the litera- tu r e on English te a ch a r wo rk l oa d was under takenin anatte mpt to gather information regardingcommon workload concernsamong Englishteachers. aecetcn8 foc us esonworkload studies and initiatives atthe provincial lev el. Section C undertakesa briefexaminat ionof the deveIopraerrt; oftheEngl i s h Curriculum in Newfoundlandand Labrador. Thi s third secti o nis included in an att e mpt to place the background to the reorganized senior high program(1981) into perspective.
Sectio nJlr.: Generalper sp e c tive
It is clear to any obs erver tha t the re are aspects of te a c he r workload , such as, len gth of theschool day, super - vis iondutiesand the like, whichare common tomost if no t
ie all te a ch e r s . It is equ a llyclear that adj ustme n t s in such areas impact upon the wor kl oa d of th e Engl i s h teacher.
However,theth r u st of thisstudy is towardexaminingwhAtare the particular , if not unique , workload concerns of the Englishteacher in the second a r y(high) school. Most ofthe lite r at ur e on Engl i s h te a c he r workload ha s been cited in appropriate places in SUbsequent chapters of this study.
There are, however, important st udiesintoaspectsof teacher workloadthat are signifi cant enoug hto bere v i e wedhe r e.
A search of li te rature on Engli s h teacher wo r kl oa d uncove reda major study co nducted by cr.eNa t i onal council of Teachecs ofEn g li s h(197 3 ),wh i ch is mosthelpful in prov i ding a review of Ame r i c a n effo r ts toward deal ing ....ith English teacher wor kload. In 1973an Ad Hoc Committee on English Te a ch e r Workload inSec on dary Schoolswas estab l ishedby the Na tio na l Council of Teachersof Eng lis h (NeTE) . Henry B.
Maloneywasappointedchairma n. His report , entit ledWorkload for EnglishTeachers: Polic yand Pr oc ed ur e (1973 ) , prov ides the Ne TE policy on class size and te a c h er wor kload, the ba c kgro und to the policy, and a procedure fo r analyzing Englis hteacherworkl oa d inagiver.schoo lorscho ol district . The po l i c y onclas s size andteac herwo r k loa d asde v eloped by theNeT E (1973 ) is as foll ows:
A: In or d e r to ma ke it possi ble for English teachersiI'. sec o nda r y schoolsto giv e an accountabl e
performance, schools, and their communities, must recognizethat maintainingclasssizesand teacher wo r kl oa d at desirablelevels is a vital part of the co mmun i t y's a..:::countability to its teachersand its yout h.
B: In the early 1960$ the Nationa I council of Tea chers of English pronounced itsconvict i o n that the teacher of English should havedirectinstr uc- tiona lresponsibilityforno more than 100students.
Despitechanges in schools and in society, the goal of a student-to-teacherratio of 100:1 for English teachers continuesto be a valid and useful guide- li ne for many thousands of schools. For a small but significant number of schools, however, the ratio is too high: fora small fract ionof schools, th e ratiomay be too low. Although the 100:1ratio has become inadequateas a guideto English-teacher worklcad for i l l secondary schools , it remains a desirableguideline tor most.
c: A ratiofor Englishteacher workload in a gi ven school must; be determinedby discussionsamong local teachers, adll'.inist rators, and la yme n , following a de tailed analysis ot local conditions. This ana lysisshouldcons Ider- the cha r a c t e r i s ti c s of the
19
20 student population, the type and extent of educa- tional in no v a tion occurring, the pressure on te ach e r s forprofessionalgrowth, their participa- tion in extra duties and student activ ities, the organizationand administ-rationoftheschoo l, and the ccmmu n Lt.y!5expectacionaof English instructio n.
D: After determining des Irable workloads for Engli sh tea chers. sc h o o l s, in thelight ofcurr e nt and antic ipated economic co n d i t i o ns , se t specific ta rge t dates for pr ogress toward at ta i nme nt of desirableloads . Attainment ofth e final goalfor teacherworkload shouldnot be delayed more than five years from the date when analysis of local conditions is begun. (p . 8)
PartA ofthe NeTE policystresses the need for parents tobe madeaware ofhow importanta desirableclasssize and teac he r workloadis to the educationof their young. Part B of the policy reaffirmsthe call fora student-teacherratio of 100 : 1 , the same rat i o advocatedby the NCTE inthe late 19505.Part C of the policy outlin esseveral key factors that mustbe analyzedif a desirableworkl oad forEnglishteachers in a gi v e n communi ty is to be accomplished . In addition to the fa ctor s outlined in part C of the NCTE policy, the Commi t t e e iden tif i e d tea chingwri ttenco mpo s itions, reading
21
skLkLe development, individualizing the ext.ended curriculum in reading and media, and the development of skills in spea king,listeningand responding as~respon sibilities of English teachers which impact significantly upon their work loa d .
By way of achiev ingthe objective outlined in part0of the NeTt policy, the Ad Hoc Commi t tee on English Teacher Wor kl o ad rec ommended lo c a l committees be set up, within particularschool districtsor withi npartic ularcommunities, andtha tthesecommitteesconsist of:Eng li shteachers,school admini s trator (s ),sch oolboard member(s ) , appointedmember(s) of the commu n i ty and stude nt (5). The det a il e d outline of fa c t or s for local committees to consider and the strategy pr ov ided forsuch committeesto foll owmake the NCTE Workload Reportmos t valuableas a guideto initiating movement at the sch ool and / ordistri ct level towarddesirable workloads for Eng li s h teachers .
One interest i ngfact orbrough t to light bythe NCTE Ad Hoc Commi t tee on English Teacher Workl oadwas the results of a stUdyby the Institute for Administrat i ve Research(197 1 ).
Followingan extensivestudy of manycl as s r oo ms the Institute reported that:
Cla s s size is a critical factor in the presence or absence of important •indicators of quality' in cla ss roo ms. Ascl ass e s growsmalle r , the probabil-
22 ity inc r easesthatcreativeexperienc es ,good inter- personal relationshi ps, individuali zed instruction and small group workwill occur. The opposite,th e stUl tifying, depersonalized , dehumanized environ- ment , tends to form as classes grow large r. (p.11)
In reviewing the background to the NCTE policy on work- load, the AdHoc Committee (1973) pointed out that:
As the English teacher's workload increases, compositioninstructionis the first element tobe adv e rsely af f ect ed: wri ti ng as s i gn me nt s may shift from substantial pers o na l observations to cryptic notations or tono notations at all or tosi mp l y a grade; conferencesbetween teachers and pupils may be el iminatedfor ala c k of timej and small groups at rtu ned to individua l wri ti ng ne e ds may be come increasi nglyrare. classesmay begin to hear the teacher tal kabout writing in the abstract rathe r than about the writing of individua l studen ts in personalsituations. (pp. 11- 12)
Thisimpact of workload uponthe qualityof instr uction andte a c her-s tude nt interact ionhadbeendocu mented in other re s earch into English teacher wor kload. Dus el (1955 ) , attempted to determine an efficient teaching load in English.
23 The inten tion ....as toprovide certa i nguideline s for admini- strators whenassigninga teachingload to English tea chers.
One ofhi s findings wa s tha t cor rect i ng one set of student assignmentsinEnglish cou ldtakeup to tenho urs beyondthe time taken to fomu late the assignment, to take atudents th r oughthe writingproces s (pre wri t ingto polisheddr aft) , and to follow-up on the writ i n g stude nts have submitted.
Dusel stressed the importance of Engli sh , particularly composition and goo d ora l andlisteni ngskills, in a quality educationforstudents. He made clearthene c e s s i t y of paying special atte n tio n tocl ass si ze andnumber of pre pard t ions in English, so that there is time for the English te a ch er to inte rac t wit h students during the writi ng proc e s s and to respond in a meani ng fu l wa yto students 'writ i ng.
The wor k of th e NCTEAd Hoc Committee with reg a rd to fa c t o r s that mustbe conside r ed ascontributingtothe work- loa d of se co ndary English teache rs(seepar t C of NCTE pol i c y provided abo ve ) wa s most he Lpf u L in dev eloping thehypot heses and assumptions outl i ne d inChapte r I ofthisstudy. Aswe ll, the factors ide nt ifi e d in the Committee report were help f ul in designi ng certain it e ms inthe survey thi s lnve stigator develop ed fo r dist r i but ion among the sample popul at ion . It is interes t ing to note how the conclusion to th e Ad Hoc CommitteeIs report expresses the rea s onfo r thepr e s e nt state of frustra tion amo ng man y English teac he rs aroun d the province. Ac c olod i ng tothe Committe e:
"
The English teacher workload question is not -- and should never be thought of as -- a part of the teacher benefit negotiation package. It is a student benefit package. An English teacher with six classes and two hundred students each day can, of course, survive from day to day and live mare or less adequately on the salary and benefits paid by the district. But the English teacher knows what ought to be happening in classes and also knows that it cannot readily happen when students are in crowded and stressful conditions. (p. 36)
The NCTE, in the~nglishJournal (1979), renewed their call for a teacher workload of not more than 100 students.
At that time it was pointed out that:
For a teacher load of 100 students, a minimum of 20 minutesper week per student for the evaluation of writing involves 33.3 hours -- the equivalent of four working days -- in addition to the time required for the preparation and t.e ach Lnq of the otherla ng ua ge arts skills. (p. 15)
Most parentswould probably not think it unreasonable for a teacher to spend 20 minutes per week attempting to bring about improvements in their children's readir:'j, writing, or
25
speaking and listening skills. The above illustration of weekly workload is based upon 100 students. Many English teachers in Newfoundlandand Labrador have more thandouble thisnumber of student contacts.
The efforts of the Canadian Teachers' Federation (CTF) in the area of teacher workload have alreadybeen highlighted in Cha pt e r I of this study. A CTF National conrerenoe on Conditions of Emp l oyme n t for Teachers (197 3 ) addressed the problem of defining What is assigned time, planning and preparationtime, ext.recurz-Icutar time, and release time. The 1973report makes several referencesto eTFwork on defining aspects of teacher workload in 1971, suggesting that efforts by theCTF in the area of workload date back at least as far as the beginningof the 19705. Eventhough the CTr rep o r t does not distinguish. among aub'ject; areas, the definitions providedfor assi gnedtimeand planning/prepa rationti me have been helpfuL in formulating specific items of the survey administered to the sample populationin this study.
The National Conference (1973) concluded that future decisionsregarding workload should be made with a view toward
"t h erelati~nshipbetween workload and effective teachingtl (p. 7). Th.e report goes on to say that»t e e c he e s need time to thinkand plan and can do just so much after hours, on their own" (p . 7). It is precisely the s e issues that led this investigator toin i tia t e this study of English teacher work- load.
26 The reportalsosugg e ststhat:
The addi t ion ofsuppo r t services and personnel technolog icalaides,clerks, paraprofess ionals, and pr e-profe s sion als--to thescho ol may proveto have long term economi caswellased uc a t i o nal benefits, i fthe yar e ef f ec t i ve l y utilized. (p. 8)
Th i s additionof personnel and serv icesis a rec ommenda- tion adv ocatedinmo r e recentma jorst udies, Boyer (198 3 )and Good l a d(1983), andwill rece i ve furtherdisc us sio nlater in th i sstud y.
In add r essi ng the issue of extra-cur ri c u lar or co- cu r r icular activities the CTF report does not distinguish betweenwhat is extra-curricularand what isco-curricular.
The report doespoint out, however , that:
While most extr a-curricu larand co-curri cularacti- vi t i e s might prope rlybe viewedas an extension of the educationa l pr og r a m of thesc ho ol ,it should be noted that the r e ought to be some relat i on s h i p between the degree of participation insuc h acti- viti e s and the teach ers' re g u l a r teaching assign- men t . (p . J)
27 The data gathered from the survey of the sample popula- tion demonstrate the adverse impa c t of extra-curricular involvement upon English teacherworkload.The data confirm the need to look atinvolvementin extrra-curr-icul.er activities when determining an English teacherI5 teaching load.
InJune, 1977, the Canadian 'ieachers' Federation held another maj or Conference on 'reecnec Workload. This Conference focused on the present problems with teacher workload, the statusof workload provisions in Collective Agreements across Canada and future directionsand strateg~es in dealingwittl the issue of workload. As in the 1973 report, no specific references aremade to aspects of English teacher work Ioad. However cer tainpoints raised in the 1977 report are worth- whilenoting berc.
The1977 Conference reaffirmed a conclusion drawn in 197 3 that"t he major problem ofte a c he r workload is the evaluation of the quality of the workload" [p, 9). The report sugg€.sts that:
We must be able to differentiateteaching and non- teaching functions, and to negotiateteacher work- loads that are rea s o n a bl e , obtainable and in the best Interest;of a quality educationfor the child- ren we teach. (pp.9- 10)
28 The report emphasized the fact that teacher workloadis expanding rapidlyin terms of responsibilities whichmu s t be assumed for administrative/record keeping paper ....ork andthe like, ....hilethe time and ene r g y of the classroom teacher is
"fin it e". Onthe issueof class size, it was concludedthat
"whe t he r we want to ornot :andwi"c.hall the kinds of problems thatwrc inherentin tryingto work out satisfactorysortsof arrangements, we have to build-inclauses thatprot e c t that part" (p. 18). The reportstressed tha t, beyond areas like class size and length of the school day, there is a need to ide nti f y which aspectsof teache rworkloadare "negotia ble and whi :hare best left tocc.ns u l t a t i on" (p.53). The reportalso emphas ized the problems of obta ining all that is wanted throughnegotiation,asavLda no e d through var iousarbitration proceedingsand teacher strikes.
In 1982, the CanadianTeachers' Federationpubl Iehed a more compreh ensive rep o r tenti tledTga c herWorkloadin Canada.
The report appears to be an attemp t to bring together the variouslegislationfrom ecr-osa Canada regardingle ngt hofthe school year , length of the instructional day, class size, teacher responsibilities,aupsn-vi.sicn,ext r a c ur r icu la r duties, and theli ke . As well, someinternational comparisons are providedon aspects suchas instructiona l minu tesper week, average class sizes and length of the school year. Teacher WorkloadinCa na d a is, to a significantdegree, a sumua ry of the work of previousCTF effortsin documenting and analyzing
29 aspectsand in i t i ati ve s in thearea of teacher....orkloadacross Cana da . A summary ofthe wcz-k koad conce rnsof te ac hers as outlinedspecificallyin the repo rt include :
1. School yea r, with par ticular attent ion totheuse which can be made of non- instruct i on al days.
2. Schoolday and week , wit h particular attent ion to instructional time, prepara tio n time and over-all hours of duty.
J. Assignments , withpartic ula r attent ionto numbe rof preparations , cor rect ion load, and, in ge neral, equ i tabl e distri bution of teaching and non-teach i ng dutiesamong all teachers on sta ff.
4. Noon hour supervisorydut ies.
5. Supervisory dutie s befo r e and after scho o l, or during scho o l day.
6. On-ca ll and subs ti tutedutieswhe notherteachers inthe school are absent.
7. Extracurr i c ula r duties , wit h emphasis on the ir voluntary natu re .
8. Staff meetings, with emphasisonthe irleng th and freque ncy.
9. Me e ti ng s withpar en ts .
10 . Classsizeandpup il/tea c he r rati os. 11. Compen sa tion for overtime andov e r l oad. The1£8 2 re portnote dthat bet ween1966 and 1981there hadbe e n 104teacher strikes , 61'work torul e' campaigns or
30 instances of mass resignations for a total of 165 uses of s anctiLcris, Of the 165 cases, the report noted that 30 arose
"directly from such workload mattersas class sizeand super- vision, and a further 16 indicated concern over working conditions as well as salaries and benefits" (p. 9). The report also pointed out that recent puct tcat Icns of interna- tional organizations like the World Confederation of Organi- zations of the T~achingProfession (WCOTP) and the Geneva report on The Employment and Conditions of Work of Teachers (198 1 ) make clear that "wo r k l o a d is a cancern througtlout the world" (p, 39). The CTF report (1982) concludes by stating that, even though progress thr.ough legislation and negotiation has been made in certain aspects of teacher workload, it cannot be said that the majority of teachers in Canada have protection through workloadprovisions. This is so even when provisions have been outlined in collectiveagreements. It is pointed out that the data on grievance arbitrations included in the report make it clear that workload provisions
"a r e unlikely to achieve their objectL'...e unlessthey are both clearly worded and binding on the employer" (p.42).
The work of The National Council of Teachers of English and The CanadianTeachers' Federationprovides adequate evi- dence that workload problems have been a concernnot only for English teachers but for teachers generally bothnationally and internationally. The specific concerns of teachers generally are no less so for English teachers. However, the
31 work of theNCTEinthe United States demonstrates ho w certain areas uni que to the subject; field of English have a serious imp ac t upon workl oad. Additional re s e ar c h documented in Chapter Five of this study , along with the dat a from the sur ve yof the samplepopUlation in this study, willcl e a r l y demonstratehow severalof the concernssummarized from the CTF report (1982 ) neve a significantly greater effect upon the over-allworkloadof English teachers.
SectionB: Prov i nc ialpers pe cti ve
A search of the literat ure on English teacher workload inthe Province of Newfoundl and and Labrador did not yie ld any pertinent information. Beyond the work carried out bya committeeof th e NTA EnglishSpeci a l Interest Council (1985) , t.h Ls author could find no loc a l study dealing specifically withworkloadconcernsof English tea chers. Lued i c ke (1 974) co nduc t e d a rather intense investigati on of workl oad among teachers incentral andRegional HighSchoolsinNewfound Land, Luedickeelicited evidence from a randomsample of teachers in the forty Regionaland onehundr e d and four centralHigh Schoolswhichexistedat theti me of hisstud y(p.37) . While the study focusedon thecl a s s r o o m teachergenerally,Chapt er VII of hisre p or t deals with teacher workloadaccording to SUbjectfield. Luedfcke dividedtea cher s into eightgroups:
English, Social StUd i es, Mathematics, science, French, Off Pattern , No Concentration, and Other. Inorder to be placed
J2 intoone of thefivemainsubjectfields, "the teacherhadto spe nd50 perce nt or more of histimeinthe ones ubj e ct; field wh ichwas also the teacher's ma jo r and/or mi no r field of training" (p. 109). The co nclusion s dr a wnfr o m tuedtcke' e subj e ctfield breakdown are quite revealing.
with respect to thenumbe r of hour s during a fi ve-day work week that te a ch e r s spe nt onth e preparation of Lessons andmaterials , Luedickereported tha t;
The No Con centrat ion gro up had the he aviest pre- paration load with 9.50 hours, fol lowed by the Engl i shgroup wi th7.50hours . TheSo cialStUdi e s, Mathe mati c s, French and Ot he r grou ps ha d the ligh t e s t preparation loads with5. 00hours. (p. 113)
Of the time spent preparinglessonsand materialsdur i ng the two-day we e ke nd , Luedicke reported that:
Englishteachersdevotedth e most time toprepara- tion with 2.17 hours •. . Only English teachers exceeded the total groupmedian t imeof 2.00 hours.
A significant difference, at the .05 lev e l , was revealedwhe n the EngJ'shgroupwas comparedto the remaininggroups. Englishteachers spent signifi- cantly more ti me on the preparation ofle s s o n s and materials in a two-dayweekendthan di d teachersin
J3 the othersubject field groups. No other signifi- cant differences were found. (pp.113-114)
In response to a question of time spent; marking, Luedicke noted that:
A range of 3.25 hours spent on marking by the va r i ous subj ect field group sexists for a seven-day week. English teachers have the heaviest marking load with 8.25 hours, followedby Social Studies tea chersand teachersinthe Ot he r s group with 7.00 hours ••• (p. 117 )
He goes on to state that "a statistical relationshipbetween the subject field inwhich a teacher is teaching and thetime devoted to marking exists for English teachers." (p. 118) Rega r dingpreparationti me tuedickepointsout that:
,The mediantest for two independent groups revealed that English teachers spent significantlymore time on theirtotal teaching activitieswhencomp a r ed to the remaining groups ... in a two-dayweekend,the English group spent the most timeon teaching acti- vities with 5.67hours. The Mathematicsgroup spent thele ast time with 3.00hours. (pp. 128-12 9 )
"
The conc luding comments in Luedicke's chapter on subject;
fie lds ar e most revealing:
Based on the findingsof thischa pt e r, it mustbe conclu dedthat the SUbject fieldin whicha teacher is teaching appears to have littleov era ll effect on a teacher'swor kload. TheEng li s h group is the single group which can claim any major workl oad difference when compared tothe remaining SUbj e ct fieldgroups. (p.131)
Inhi s co nclu sion . Lued ickealsonotes that:
Englishteachersreported thehea v i e s t total teacher workload, as well asthe heaviestmarking loa din a fi ve-d a y ....ee k and thehe av i e s t preparationload in a two-dayweekend. As the dailystudentcontact increased, so didthe total teacherwork load. This was partially in evidencefor the classroominstruc- tion,preparation , and marking loads. (p.226)
I tmust be rememberedthat Luedicke's findings apply to a period when the Englishprogram at the senior highschool level consisted of four English courses over a two year programas opposed to 15 cours e s spread overa three yea r program. His findingsmakequiteclear the fact that English
35 teachersin the provi n ceofNewf ound la nd and La br a d o r demon- st r a t e workload problems beyondthose ofother sUbject fields. His da t a reinforces the evidence presented in subsequent Ch a p t e r s of this study: th a t English teachers have a 51gn 1- fic a ntl y greaterprepa rationloadand marking load thanmos t i fnot all othereubject; fields.
The Newfoundland 'reecners' Associati on (NTA) has mad e many ini t i a t i ve s in the ar e a of teacher workloadgenerally but none in the specific area of English which ha ve been docu me ntied , exc e pt for the Commit teeof the Engli sh special Interest Counc il (1 9 8 5). A repo rt of the Committee was pre s e nt e d to the execut i veof the NTA inthe fallof 1985and became the focus of attentionat Annual Con f e r en c es of the Eng li sh special Int e r estCouncil in 1986 and 1987. However, any particul ar actionta ken in responseto therepo r t has not been made publictoEnglishteachers acrossthe province.
Acc ordingtoa reportof an NTACommittee on Salary and Working Conditio ns (1972), clauseson non-te a c hi ng ti me and pupil-teacherratio were being formulatedas priorityitems forcollective bargaining. There port statedtha t the"numb e r of non-teachingperiods per day or per week should be in a co n t r a c t along with such things as corridor, canteen or washroomdut i e s" (p. 4) . The Committee report alsostated that"i n assigningteacherresponsibilitiesoth e r factors such as SUbject areastaught, lab-o r i entedclasses, supervision , etc., must be given consideration" (p . 6). Up to the
3. Collective Agreement (19 88- 9 0 ), suchspecificword i n g has not found it s way into the teache rs 'cont ract.
In r eeponse to co nc e r n s voi ce d by tea ch ers ac rossth e provinceduring the198 2-83 CollectiveAg reement negot i a tions , theNe wfoun dl a ndTe achers' As s oc i at i on begana provinc e-w ide survey of teache r workload. Acco rding to the NTA Workl oad Survey-Re po r t (1984) . asurveywas prov i d e d toallcl a s sroo m teachers, department he ads, guidance counsellors, program coordinato r s,pr incipa l s ,vice -principalsandli bra ri a n s.The re sul t sof 6,057 accep tabl e returns ind i c ate d that classroom teachershaveno gr eater workload(g i veninminu tesperweek) thanguidancecounsellors,principalsor vice-princi pals. A.
maj o r weak ness in the NTA survey lay in exactly what was permi .tt.ad to co un t as preparation time and th e lack of a cate goryaddress i ng t imere qui r ed for marking pap e rs. In sho r t, theNTAsurvey, whil e addressi ngimpor t a ntaspe c tsof te ac h erworkl oa d , di d .!J..Q!; "o bt a i n an accurat e and deta il ed pictureof the wo r kweek" (p. 1) ofEngli s hteache r s.
The findingswere us ed bythe NTA in preparing a ~ senta ti on to The Task Force on Education (1984). Inthe ir presentation to the Ta s kForce, the NTA. prov ided a rathe r str ong case for lower cl ass siz es andmo reprepa ra t i o n time for te a c he r s . Th e NTA submi ssion totheTask Force argued forma x i mum classsizes to be built int o CollectiveAg r eeme nts and that teac he r s be gi ven "a minimum of 200 minutes of preparation time per teacher wcrx week" (p.15). This would
J7 be the equivalent of one 40 minute preparation period per day.
In terms of class size, the NTA proposed a clause stating that
"no high school class shall exceed thirty (30) students" (p.
30)•
The Report of The Task Force on Education (1984) seems to have provided little beyond a discussion of the problems which came under its terms of reference, namely: class size, instructional day for students and for teachers,preparation time and substitute teacher remuneration and benefits. with regard to class size and preparation time -- two areas of workload that impact tremendously upon the English teacher- - the Report suggested these matter should be examined by standing or ad hoc committees inVolving Government and NTA.
The Report did recommend that"t he goal of 200 minutes per week of preparation be worked toward" (p. 8). The report went on to say, however, that."we cannot accept the view of the NewfoundlandTeachersI Association that this time be stipu- lated as a minimum" (p. 8).
wayne Russell, the NTA representative on the Task Force (1 9 8 4) , differed with the other members of the Task Force and provided a Minority Report. He accused the Task Force of offering "only an academic lecture expre ining some textbook version of an education system where all problems are solved at the local rever- (p. 1). In discussing preparation time, Russell recommended that Collective Agreements"s t i pu l a t e that wherever possible a teacher be providedwith a minimum of 200
3.
mi nutes per week of prepa rat i o n" (p. 7). The "whe r e ve r possible" wa s included to accommodatesmall schoolswherethe total staff allocationsof t endonot prov idethefle x ib il ity to ac c o mmoda t e 200 mi nut e s of preparationtime per we e k for each teacher and still deliver the reor g an i ze d senior high program.
De s p itethe creationof theSpecial Task Force on Educa- ti on (19'34), no specificnumbe r s of preparationminutes per week and no specificcla s s sizesforhi g h school have yet bee n att a i ne d through negot ia tio n. Instead, be g i nn i ng wi th the CollectiveAgreement (1984-88), ongoingcommitteeshave be en add ress ingspecific aspectsof teache rworkload .
Duringthefall or19 8 5 , a Ministerial Advisory Commi ttee on ClassSizeandWo rk load wa s estab l ishedin ac corda nc e with scheduleE. "Memorandum of understanding"ofthe provi nc ia l tea c her s ' CollectiveAg r e e men t (198 4-88). Part of themandate of this cemmi ttee was toconsid er:
Issue s rel a t ed to workload and classsize, witha view todevisi ng a macha nLamfeI forthe ident ific a - tio n of unr e a s on ab le te a c h er workloads, including thewo r kl oa ds ofschool admi ni s t rators and te a c hers inmUl t i-grad e cl assrooms . That the co mmittee will alsodetermine methods of impl eme nt i ng the recom- menda tions co nta i ned in the Tas kfo r ceRep orton Teacher workload and Cla ss Size, in ke ep ing wi t h
39 those standards for class size and workload as determined by the committee. (p. 56)
The Task Force Report, referred to above, was the report of the Task Force on Education discussed previously in this chapter.
In what was referred to as the"fi r s t phase", the Mini- sterial Advisory Committee began to tackle the workload problems of teachersbymanipulating two variables: amount of classroom instruct-ion and class size. out of the Committee's work over the winter of 1986 came a formula for assessing a teacher's workload factor (r e f e r red to as the T.W.F.).
According to the committee, the T.W.F. may be calculatedas fo ll ows :
T.W.F. =Average Class Size x Total Number of Assigned Instructional Minutes
60
The total numberof assignedinstructionalminutes re f e r s to the total number of minutes an individual is assigned to teach per five day week. It is thenstated thatany teacher's T.W.F. "s ha l l not exceed 600". Where a teacher's T.W.F . exceeded 600, that teacher's teaching load was to be re- assigned, which could involve a realignmentof person nel on a school basis or a realignment of personnel on a district basis. I fthe above steps did not succeed in bringing every
