2
Summary
1) Introduction
2) The questionnaire
3) Government proposals for roles
Contents
9) Relationships between the proposals
10) Open-ended comments
11) Discussion
References
4) Administrative and other ancillary roles
5) Roles involving contact with pupils and parents
6) Roles involving fuller contact with pupils and parents
7) Senior staff roles of a managerial kind
8) Other proposals for staff without qualified teacher status
Appendix I The questionnaire
Appendix II Methods and sample
Appendix III Characteristics of the sample
Appendix IV Breakdown of responses to proposals
Appendix V Responses broken down by age of respondents
Appendix VI Responses broken down by length of service p.54 p.62 p.63 p.66 p.75 p.84
Appendix VII Responses broken down by employment status
Appendix VIII Responses broken down by phase
Appendix IX
Appendix X
Factor groups
Factor group means
Acknowledgements p.93 p.100 p.113 p.114
This survey was commissioned by the National Union of Teachers but was produced with complete academic autonomy by the University of Warwick. The
Union may disagree with any, or all, of the statements made in this report. Data entry was performed by DataWorld2000, Coventry. p.3 p.6 p.6 p.8 p.18 p.22 p.27 p.32 p.36 p.41 p.46 p.50 p.53

3
Summary ‘If Tony Blair turned up for open heart surgery… Would he let the porter operate?’
The analysis is based on 31,232 responses to a survey of NUT members on proposals for new roles for support staff which had been received by the closing date of 2 nd . December 2002.
The four core proposals
– that support staff should provide administrative support to teachers and learners, that they should assist teaching and learning in classes when teachers are present, that they should lead some teaching and learning in their own right without teachers being present, and that they should cover for teacher absence – received radically different responses. The first two were the most popular of all the proposals included in the questionnaire, the last, covering for teacher absence, the most unpopular. The proposal for support staff to lead teaching was fourth most unpopular
– only the proposals for more managers without qualified teacher status from outside education and for the appointment of teachers without qualified teacher status were less popular. Teachers are outraged, given the rigorous regime of training and inspection which they have endured over the last decade, by the suggestion that unqualified people can do the job equally well.
A striking finding was the relation between the two proposals related to teaching and learning – the popular proposal that support staff should assist teaching and learning with the teacher present, and the much less popular proposal that they should lead teaching and learning in their own right. Though these proposals differ so much in popularity, their relative popularity among groups of teachers is similar; both are relatively more accepted by the teachers who already work with support staff in teaching roles in the classroom
– special school, primary and under-5s teachers. Though this suggests that experience of working with support staff would lead to greater acceptance, respondents voiced concerns about the variability in competence of support staff, and their inadequate pay and opportunities for training. The proposals made by the Government for more systematic training of support staff must be implemented; more experienced staff voiced concerns about a return to the situation before all staff responsible for teaching had to be trained. There is little point in the current rigorous regimes for teacher training and inspection unless the quality of training provided for support staff is equally carefully monitored. Otherwise there is little prospect that the progressive improvements in educational achievement, which the Government is aiming at, will be achieved. Further weight is given this point by the hostility to these proposals being greatest in grant maintained schools, academies and
CTCs
– the types of institution which were set up as flagships of educational excellence. Here staff might be expected to be most supportive of policy initiatives – and indeed they supported most other groups of proposals. Their strong opposition to the proposals for support staff to be involved in teaching and learning indicates educational concerns, not Luddite retrogressiveness, lie behind teachers’ attitudes.

4
The most popular group of proposals, especially among staff at sixth-form colleges and in secondary schools, were those for support staff to undertake a variety of technical support roles (attendance clerks, ICT technicians, health & safety/site managers, exam officers, timetabling officers and invigilators). In these large institutions, which are teaching at high academic levels with relatively mature students, there is a need for support staff to take specialist roles, and sufficient work to justify their employment.
Teachers were more concerned about roles involving responsibility for children
(behaviour managers, cover supervisors, covering for teacher absence, learning mentors, and careers advisers). However sixth-form college and secondary staff were again the most positive about these proposals, for the same reasons as previously.
Specialist teaching ancillary staff roles (music and drama specialists, sports coaches, and language assistants) were popular, though teachers of these subjects voiced concerns about them. These proposals formed a group together with that for high level teaching assistants.
Proposals for support staff to take senior managerial roles (human relations/ personnel managers, business managers, facilities managers and lead behaviour managers) evoked mixed views. They were also most popular in sixth-form colleges and secondary schools, again reflecting the size and complexity of these institutions, though primary heads saw a need for this type of assistance as the role of head has become more diverse and demanding.
The most unpopular group of proposals was that proposing to introduce more outsiders into teaching (appointing staff from further education, sixth form colleges and independent schools without qualified teacher status, a fast track for proven leaders from outside education, and appointing more managers from outside education without qualified teacher status). They were especially unpopular with teachers in mid-career – those who would be expecting to make the move to senior positions and who would be supplanted by these incomers.
There is a risk that the morale of these established teachers will be damaged, and even that they might be driven to leave education. Education can ill afford to lose this generation of potential leaders, given the age profile of the profession, with a large proportion of teachers due to reach retirement age in the next decade or so. This group of proposals was also an exception to the general pattern for a trend with age; for the other groups of proposals younger teachers were usually more positive than their older colleagues, but the mid-career teachers who were most concerned about this group were also in favour of many of the proposals for using support staff to take administrative roles which would support.

5
Supply and agency teachers were particularly concerned about almost all the proposals, especially those which would permit support staff to take over duties currently performed by these staff. Part-timers were also concerned. As teachers often work on a part-time or supply basis during periods when family or other commitments prevent them from taking full-time work, with a view to resuming full-time work when circumstances permit, if support staff are used to replace part-time or supply teachers, these teachers may lose contact with teaching, and will be lost from the future pool of ‘returners’.
In the chart below the proposals are arranged in order of popularity, on a scale where 5 indicates ‘strongly agree’, 1 ‘strongly disagree’ and 3 ‘mixed views’. The breaks at 3.5 and 2.5 have been used to separate the four proposals which most teachers agree with, and the seven which most disagree with, from those where there is a greater or lesser difference of opinion.
4.5
Mean ratings for all proposals
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
A dm in is trati ad s in g
Ts a nd
He in g & l earn
ICT tech
A ni tte nd ve su pp or t to
A ss is t te ach ci an s an ce
c lerks
Invi rs gi lato
S
/ si te m
H& rs ts an age
assi stan
La ng ua ge
S ports
M us ic
& dra m coa che s ci al a spe
Le an is ts ing
m
B us en tor ine ss s
m an age
Car rs vi ser s ee rs
ad
Fa ci liti es ma na ge rs
Hi gh
leve
E xam ac hi l te
of fic ers ng
as si stan
Ti m eta ati on s ts bl ing
of fic an rel er s el
m an grs
/ p er so nn
B eha vi ou r ma na ge rs
Cov er
s up ervi
Fa st track f or outs
Le ad sors ide
lea ha vi ou r m
be
Le ad
te ach de in rs an ag ers in g o g & l earn n o
M or e m an age
A ppo wn ts id e S ut
QT
ou rs
fr om f wi tho int staf er
for
te ach er ab
Cov
Hum sen ce

6
1) Introduction
The document ‘Time for Standards’ (DfES 2002a) does not set out to be a reassuring read for teachers, claiming on its first page
‘So far we have had incremental change, in the next phase we need transformational change…’, and, two pages later, ‘of individuals being open to challenge and scrutiny, where they are rewarded for success but accountable for failure’. Given that Smithers and
Robinson (2001) identified constant policy change as one of the main reasons for teachers leaving the profession, and the acceptance, on pages 5 and 6 of the document, that the teacher supply situation is going to remain tight for the next few years, t here is a risk that the document’s emphasis on change might exacerbate the problems it identifies, increasing teacher wastage. The document immediately suggests a solution (page 6) – ‘restructuring the teaching workforce, as happened long ago in medicine a nd law’ by removing clerical and other nonteaching tasks. In this format the analogy would be accepted by teachers, as the excess load of bureaucracy (identified as a key problem on page 2 of the
Introduction, but, of course, largely created by government itself) has been widely condemned by teachers (e.g. in a survey of members of the National Union of
Teacher – Neill 1998). The Government’s proposed remedy is to delegate work currently carried out by teachers to ‘support staff’ (this term is used in the current report to encompass the range of roles, including administrative and managerial roles, covered in the proposals). This remedy would be less uncritically accepted by teachers: one role which caused particular concern in a previous survey of attitudes to support staff carried out for the Union (Neill 2002), is the role of teaching assistant or learning support assistant. Respondents used these, and similar terms, in their written-in comments, but in the text the generic term
‘support staff’ has been used for these roles.
Priority areas for the deployment of support staff are seen (DfES 2002b, p.4) as administrative - ‘assisting classroom teachers with administrative and other routine tasks’, ‘providing technical support, particularly relating to information and communications technology (ICT)’ - managerial - ‘assisting headteachers with higherlevel managerial and responsibilities’ (sic) – but also in relation to the teaching and behaviour of pupils
– ‘assisting classroom teachers with higherlevel ta sks directly associated with teaching and learning’ and ‘supporting schoolwide behaviour management’. The questionnaire, discussed in the next section, distinguished between these types of duties; previous work (Neill 2002) indicated that teachers had sharply differing views about the acceptability of support staff carrying out non-teaching as opposed to teaching duties.
2) The questionnaire
The questionnaire was devised in discussion between the Union and the
University of Warwick and comprised three main sections. The first covered information on teachers and their schools, to assess whether the proposals were eliciting different reactions from, and would have different effects on, teachers in

7 different situations. This section included questions on the age and length of service of respondents (allowing assessment of whether mature entrants to teaching have different attitudes), their employment status (full-time, part-time or supply/agency), position and gender, and also questions on the phase in which they were teaching and the financial status (LEA - maintained, voluntary-aided etc.) of their school.
The second, main section included questions, all rated on a five-point scale from
‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’, on the Government proposals for introducing wider responsibilities for support staff. There were six subdivisions to this section. The first covered four administrative and teaching responsibilities
(provide administrative support to teachers and headteachers; assist teaching and learning in classes when teachers are present; lead some teaching and learning in their own right without teachers being present; cover for teacher absence). The second subdivision covered administrative and other ancillary roles (health & safety / site managers; attendance clerks; timetabling officers; exam officers; ICT technicians). The third covered roles involving contact with pupils and parents, but not involving teaching activity (invigilators; behaviour managers; careers advisers; learning mentors / advice & guidance; cover supervisors). Roles involving fuller contact with pupils and parents and teaching activity, subject to supervision by a qualified teacher (high level teaching assistants; sports coaches; music and drama specialists; language assistants) were the fourth subdivision. The fifth and final group of roles were senior staff roles of a managerial kind (business managers/bursars; human relations/ personnel managers; lead behaviour managers; facilities managers). A final set of closed questions asked for reactions to proposals for increasing the role of staff without qualified teacher status (appointment of more managers without
QTS from outside education; appointment of teachers from further education, sixth-form colleges and independent schools who lack QTS; and the development of a fast track mechanism for proven leaders from other sectors to achieve QTS and NPQH). The full questionnaire is given in Appendix I.
Information on the analysis and sample are given in Appendix II, and tabular information on the sample in Appendix III. Some respondents did not answer all the biographical questions, and percentages both of the full sample, and ‘valid’ percentages, of those who did answer, are given. Full tabular details of the responses by the whole sample are given in Appendix IV and those by subgroups in Appendices V-VIII; as these are based on the valid responses from those who answered the biographical question only, the totals vary slightly between appendices.

8
3) Government proposals for roles
The key proposals for roles were those involving administrative and teaching support; as the table on the following page, which lists all the proposals, shows, two of these four proposals, for administrative support and assisting teaching and learning, evoked the most positive responses, while another two, leading teaching and learning and covering for teacher absence, evoked among the most negative responses, the cover proposal being the least popular of all.
Government proposals for support staff roles
Provide administrative support to teachers and headteachers
Assist teaching and learning in classes while teachers are present
Lead some teaching and learning in their own right without teachers being present
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Mixed views
Agree
Agree strongly
Cover for teacher absence
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The Government wants support staff to have the roles set out below
Provide administrative support to teachers and headteachers
Nearly half the respondents (49%) agreed strongly with this proposal, and over a third (36.7%) agreed. Only a small minority disagreed (1.8%) or disagreed strongly (1.4%); a tenth of the sample (10.6%) had mixed views.

D e s c r i
2 p
7
9 t
2 i v
M
6 e S t a t i s t i c s
A
T
A
a d s s m
T
I C
A t n
& s p
T t e i i t n n s r h t e e d i s e t s c a t a e e h n r a d a n n c t s c t i c e i v h i e n g s i a c
I n
H m
L v e a a n l t a h g a n i g g i l u a a t o
& e r g r s e s s a a f s n l e s s e t i r y s k t u
& s
/ a p l p e s n t i o a t s r r e
S p o r
M s u p s e i c
L
&
B e a g r u u s i t i n s c a n i i d c
& l i s o d t a r s c a n a g n m c e e s s m h m e n a e a t n s o a
C o
F l e a a v s d t e e r t r r s a s u c f p k r o r s g e r v f o m r i o s p u o r t e r o s
r s s a
C
F
E
H a a a x i s r c a g s e i l e i m h i s t l t r i i e s e n a s a v n a d m v a t e t i o l s n t e i s n o a e a f c r g s e r f h i c i n s e g r s
T i m e t a b
H p u e m r s a o n n n
B e h a v i o l i n u r g r e e l l a t m o m f f i c e r s i o a n n a a n s g a
/ e g r e s r s v i d e e d n
L e m a a d n a
L e w i t a h d o b g t u e t e e h r a s a c
T v h i
C a o b v s e e r n c f o e r t i e o n a u g c r
& h l e e r a r
M o o u t
A w p i t r p h e s i o o m d e i n u t t a n e a d g u e c r a s t i
F
Q
E
T S e t c .
o f r n s o t m a f n f a l i d N ( l i s t w i s e ) t n v i n t i i o n c g g e

10
Written-in comments included:-

In my present school (1200 pupils) we have 2 ICT technicians, 6 LSAs all assigned to specific pupils, 3 science technicians and a vast number of office
/admin staff
– what we do not have are general ‘classroom assistants’ – we need them!
 Taking registers
 Collecting reply slips
– endless!

Renewing displays
 Tidying resources
 Ordering resources

Etc.
All the mundane tasks that take up too much teacher-time. (Female secondary Main Scale, 20+ years’ experience)

Unfortunately, due to OFSTED and panic by the headteacher, TAs (in my school) rarely contribute to the everyday running of the class. Duties I do include:
 photocopying

cutting paper
 displays
 preparing equipment

collecting money for e.g. school photos, trips, charity events
 clearing up after art lessons
I have been told not to use TAs in this way – “They are employed to help the children only”. (Female primary Leadership Group member, 16-20 years’ experience)

TAs provide valuable admin support but
– many in the school where I work have thought about training as a teacher, but dismissed the idea, as they didn’t want the responsibility or the working hours. The one or two who did want to have trained as TEACHERS (Female primary Leadership Group member, 1620 years’ experience)

As for other responsibilities proposed it seems a needless bureaucratic process. In my experience assistants want to be just that. Often they are parents themselves who don’t need any extra pressure. (Female primary
Main Scale, 15 years’ experience)
Differences in views related to age were curvilinear; teachers below 30 were more likely to have mixed views or agree, those between 30 and 50 to agree strongly, and those over 50 to disagree strongly. While relatively weak in this case, this pattern, which is repeated for other proposals, suggests that active managers in the middle years of their career are more positive than their less experienced colleagues and than teachers approaching retirement. There was a linear trend with increasing opposition among teachers with greater length of service, though teachers with over 20 years’ service included both relatively more who strongly opposed the proposal and relatively more who strongly agreed.
Secondary teachers were much more likely to agree strongly with this proposal,

11 as were sixthform college staff, while primary staff only ‘agreed’. Special school and nursery staff were more likely to have mixed views or to be opposed. These differences in views reflect the size of institutions in the various phases and the closeness of teachers’ personal involvement with individual pupils. Differences related to school status were limited, though staff in grant-maintained schools and CTCs were rather more positive than those in other types of school.
Employment status showed a linear trend: supply teachers were less likely to strongly agree, and more likely to hold other views than other groups; part-time were less in favour than full-time staff.
Assist teaching and learning in classes while teachers are present
Views on this proposal were very similar to those on the previous proposal, but rather less positive; fewer respondents (43.5%) agreed strongly with the proposal and almost as many (40.5%) merely agreed. More respondents than for the previous proposal had mixed views (11.5%), disagreed (2.2%), or disagreed strongly (2.3%).

Teaching assistants play a vital role in the classroom doing that job
– assisting the teacher!! How they are expected to do this job, which is a pivotal role in the school, whilst taking overall control of the class is beyond me.
Cloning??! (Female secondary Main Scale, 1-
5 years’ experience)

Each of the points raised depends on the amount of training which is to be given to auxiliaries. I am fortunate to have an excellent auxiliary who already does a lot of the jobs outlined in these proposals. However I have seen other examples of cases where auxiliaries are not capable of these jobs and would need much training. (Female primary Main Scale, 1-5 year s’ experience)

They [support staff] already run ELS, ALS, and FLS (soon) courses for pupils.
They are responsible for EMPAG or other support and in a school with large numbers of SEN pupils, required to assist these people in educational and behavioural contexts. (Female primary Main Scale, 15 years’ experience)

I feel that the possible teaching activities would need to be very clearly outlined, to avoid issues of lack of continuity in teaching pupils. (Female secondary Main Scale teacher, 1-
5 years’ experience)
The effect of age was again curvilinear: younger teachers were less enthusiastic about assistance with teaching and learning than teachers in their thirties and over, though teachers over 50 were also relatively unenthusiastic. Teachers with under 10 years’ experience were relatively more likely to disagree or have mixed views, those with 1120 years’ experience to agree strongly; these more experienced teachers are likely to have better team-management skills.
Teachers with 20+ years’ experience had a range of views, with relatively more strongly opposed than in other groups. Supply teachers were less likely to strongly agree, and more likely to strongly disagree than other groups, but fulltime teachers were more likely to have mixed views or disagree. Secondary and sixth-form teachers were much less enthusiastic than their primary, special

12 school, and under-5s colleagues. Staff in grant maintained schools and CTCs were less positive about this proposal than those in other types, reflecting the greater concern with academic standards in these types. Major points in relation to this proposal were the ambivalence of younger and recently appointed teachers, who are more likely to find an assistant, especially if experienced, more of a challenge to their authority, and the concerns of those in the institutions with more academic emphasis.
Lead some teaching and learning in their own right without teachers being present
In contrast to the previous two proposals, 39.1% of respondents disagreed strongly with this proposal, with a fifth (20.4%) disagreeing and a quarter (25.6%) having mixed views. Only 10.5% agreed with the proposal and 3.9% agreed strongly.
The suggestion (DfES 2002b, p.9) that teachers should be ‘accountable for learning outcomes rather t han every step of the journey’ and that teacher time should be freed for ‘high quality preparation, planning and assessment’ risks depriving them of the interaction with children which for many teachers is a key motivation to enter teaching (Smithers & Robinson 2001).

Although I appreciate help in admin tasks I do not want cover to free me to do even more paper work. I became a teacher to TEACH. I want to be in the classroom teaching lessons not in the staffroom writing them! (Female primary Leadership group member, 1115 years’ experience)

As SENCO I have contact with many support assistants and many of them feel threatened by the proposals. They don’t feel confident to be in charge of classes in our inner-city school with challenging students yet they are doing a fantastic supportive role which they may wish to relinquish if they feel forced into taking more responsibility. If (as I believe) teachers are not paid enough to do an increasingly difficult job then support assistants certainly aren’t.
(Female secondary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)

I value the role of support staff within the classroom. I do not agree they should ‘take on’ a teacher role without a formal teaching qualification… Also the salary a support assistant receives is insulting to the work they ALREADY do. (Female primary Main Scale, 16-
20 years’ experience)
 If assistants are going to be used as ‘teachers’ while teachers work on planning, are we not being forced into a role of paper shufflers instead of the dynamic and innovative people we are? (Primary female Main Scale, 6-10 years’ experience)
Older teachers (from 40 up) were more likely to disagree strongly with this proposal than their younger colleagues, who were more likely to have mixed views or disagree. There was a similar pattern related to length of experience; teachers with 5 years’ experience or less were relatively more likely to have

13 mixed views (as did those with 6-
10 years’ service), disagree or strongly agree, while those with over 20 years’ experience were more likely to disagree strongly.
There was a trend across employment status, with supply teachers least enthusiastic, and part-timers less enthusiastic than their full-time colleagues.
Secondary school teachers, and to a lesser extent sixth-from college staff, were much more strongly opposed to this than their colleagues in primary and special schools, who were more likely to have mixed views, agree or agree strongly.
Grant-maintained school and CTC staff were also strongly opposed; as with the previous proposal this reflects concern about academic standards.
Cover for teacher absence
Reactions to this proposal were even more negative than to the previous proposal; nearly two-thirds (62.1%) of the respondents disagreed strongly with the proposal and with those who disagreed (16.8%), four-fifths of respondents were opposed. Less than a tenth agreed (4.9%) or agreed strongly (4.2%), rather more (11.7%) having mixed views. Some written-in comments indicated concern as to whether support staff could maintain effective control over classes for a prolonged period, for example in inner-city schools.

I am absolutely incensed by the inference that teachers who spend four years studying to a high degree level can be replaced by staff, however well meaning and eager, who have, in many instances, poor educational qualifications and skills ….This idea is just as ridiculous as allowing health care receptionists to “cover” nursing and other professional medical staff.
(Female under-5s Leadership Group member, 6 -10 ye ars’ experience)

Teaching Assistants are very valuable members of school staff. I have worked with some very competent people who are superb with the children.
However if they were placed totally in charge of the children’s education there are two problems as I see it:
1) Talking to them they don’t want the responsibility and would not take on the job if that was expected
2) What would be the point of taking all the study and training if you didn’t need to? (Female primary supply Main Scale, 1620 years’ experience)
Again teachers over 40 were more likely to disagree strongly with this proposal; teachers under 30 had very mixed views, scoring above average on all categories except ‘strongly disagree’. The same pattern occurred for experience, with teachers having
11 years’ experience or more strongly disagreeing
(especially those with 20+ years’ experience) and teachers with 5 years’ experience or less having a wide range of views. There was an extremely strong trend across employment status, with supply teachers most strongly opposed and full-time teachers least so; this proposal is a clear threat to the employment prospects of supply teachers, as the following comments indicate:-

14

This will mean a huge reduction in my workload. (Female secondary supply
Main Scale
, 20+ years’ experience)

As a supply teacher I am appalled that an unqualified person could replace me. (Female primary Main Scale, 610 years’ experience)
This proposal was much more strongly opposed by primary teachers, and to a lesser extent, their colleagues teaching under-5s, than secondary teachers; sixthform staff, and to a lesser extent special school staff, who were less unfavourably disposed. Teachers in grant-maintained and independent schools, and in CTCs were less unfavourable towards this proposal than those in other types.
Overall
In this group of proposals there is a very clear distinction between the first two, which involve supportive roles, and the latter two proposals, which involve support staff taking autonomous charge of the education of children. Most respondents, especially those in the school types which stress academic achievement, support the former and oppose the latter, and this is reflected in writtenin comments. This is a key issue in teachers’ response to the proposals overall.

Teaching assistants should be just that. Assisting teachers with monitoring is acceptable as is leading small groups within the classroom but to lead a class in the absence of teachers is asking too much of the T.A. (Female special school Leadershi p Group member, 20+ years’ experience)

From my own experience classroom assistants cause extra work, being unable to control the children they are working with. They employ methods derived from their own schooling contrary to what they are supposed to be d oing. (Male primary Leadership Group member, 20+ years’ experience)
A particular concern was the variability between individual support staff:-

My school has experimented with LSAs taking cover classes and this has had drastic effects; one is still carrying out the role oblivious to the fact she is providing poor education and damaging pupil discipline and attitudes. Another has resigned from the role as she was aware that it was problematic and in particular that it meant teaching staff were losing her at short notice from supporting classes; the third is a highly experienced LSA who has been in the school for some 20 years and does an exceptionally effective job as form tutor and teacher and I have no problems with her carrying out these roles.
The whole set-up was on the basis of money saving. (Female secondary
Leadership Group member, 1620 years’ experience)

As in so many cases – it would depend on the quality of individuals. We are very lucky to have some fantastic LSWs who could take on some of these roles & perform very well BUT-- we also have a couple who could NOT
– nor

15 should they ever be allowed to!!! A very difficult situation! (Female primary
Assistant Headteacher, 20+ years’ experience)

I work in a Special Needs Dept in a Secondary School. There are now about
11 assistants in the dept, and just 2 parttime ‘specialist support teachers’ left.
Our last two colleagues were sacked and assistants replaced them. Among the assistants there are several who can’t spell or do basic maths. (Female specialist support teacher, 1115 years’ experience)
 The role of assistants (and sometimes the quality) has been “dumbed down” by the acceptance of NVQ and unqualified assistants particularly in primary schools. Often, these are “nice” mums with a couple of hours spare to help with ALS etc. The quality varies enormously. (Primary Main Scale supply, 6-
10 years’ experience)
 It is very difficult saying what support staff can do or can’t do when their qualifications and abilities are so mixed. I’ve been supported by everyone from totally illiterate to degree standard! (Female primary Leadership Group member, 20+ years’ experience)

It has been my experience over many years of teaching that support staff are very variable in their performance. Many of them feel inadequate in subjects like mathematics and grammar. They did not command the children’s respect and therefore had problems with discipline. However others were excellent in helping with I.T. or reading where one to one situations were valuable for a child. (Female LEA Centrally Employed Teacher, Main Scale supply, 20+ years’ experience)
Adequate training was seen as critical – this is an issue :-
 This is simply a ‘watering down’ scheme so that the teacher recruitment problem ‘looks’ better. Using non-teaching staff has many problems – all too often the lack of professional training results in non-qualified staff misunderstanding their rôle and relationship with children and undermining teaching staff. (Female LEA Centrally Employed Upper Pay Scale Teacher,
11-16 years’ experience)

In my last post (Early Years Co-ordinator) I was very concerned when:- a) unqualified staff were appointed as classroom assistants (working alongside qualified staff) and did not receive any form of training; b) classroom assistants working in KS2 were following an NVQ III course in
‘early years’ and not receiving the practical experience, simply working in the reception class for the time the assessor was around. (Female
Leadership Group member, 20+ years’ experience)
 All the “mixed views” comments are to do with not really trusting that proper instruction will be given – that training will be given some time after the person has taken-up responsibility – that good intentions will not be carried out in practice (Male secondary Main Scale, 20+ y ears’ experience)

Incidents in the classroom can occur so quickly and unexpectedly that it is too much responsibility to give to one person unless fully trained and paid accordingly. Where staff are employed in schools for direct contact with the

16 children they should be trained to work with that specific age group & if not working under the supervision of a QTS teacher, then they should be QTS themselves if they have the responsibility for the children’s teaching & learning. (Female under-5s supply Main Scale, 16-
20 years’ experience)

I believe that if teaching assistants want to teach they should go through university and teacher training. I do, however, believe that support staff should be paid well for what they do, because they are valuable & necessary in the classroom. (Female under-5s supply Main Scale, 16-
20 years’ experience)

If classroom assistants were trained to a higher level they would need to be paid much more, so why does the government not train more teachers and put specialists in schools for some subjects to give class teachers free time in the day. I currently get no non-contact time at all. (Female primary Upper Pay
Scale Teacher, 610 years’ experience)
The last three comments link to views that support staff at the top end of the ability range should be encouraged to take a teacher training course and make use of their abilities as fully qualified teachers:-

The quality of teaching assistants, as one would expect, is very variable.
Good TAs should be given every encouragement, including financial, to take the necessary courses to enable them to become qualified teachers – others should have strictly circumscribed roles. (Male LEA Centrally Employed
Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)

In the past few years I have worked with many T.A.s. The great majority has been very able and 3/11 have gone on to train or are at the present time training to be fully qualified teachers. All are able to give excellent support in the classroom. In this time I have also come into contact with countless supply sta ff. Some have been excellent, others unbelievably awful…what we need is to ensure that all qualified teachers are good teachers. (Female special school parttime Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)
Those who had undertaken this training were aware of the difference professional training had made:-

I am a single parent who worked for ten years as a low paid primary helper while spending five of those years doing an Open University degree. I then did a one year PGCE course. I was a knowledgeable teaching assistant, however I have learned so much more by doing the PGCE course, INSET days, training courses, and having just one year’s experience as a teacher.
(Female special school Main Scale, 1-
5 years’ experience)
Awareness of this difference lay behind the concerns of teachers (and the reported concerns of parents) about whether children’s education, and, indeed, their safety, could be entrusted to unqualified staff:-

17

I currently work as a support assistant and occasional supply teacher.
Expansion of the support role would inevitably make the need for supply teachers virtually non-existent. Plus, as a parent I do not want unqualified people supervising my children. (Female part-time primary supply, Main
Scale, 6-
10 years’ experience)

In particular I have serious concerns about health & safety issues and the quality of teaching & learning. (Female SENCO, autistic unit in mainstream primary, 1620 years’ experience)
The DfES proposals (2002a) draw specific comparisons with medical practice; teachers were quick to see the other side of these comparisons:-

If Tony Blair turned up for open heart surgery and, as he was being wheeled into the theatre, the porter started scrubbing up, saying “I’m not a qualified doctor, but I’ve seen it done a thousand times…” how would he feel? Would he let the porter operate? That’s how parents feel about their children being taught by unqualified staff!! (Female secondary Upper Pay Scale Teacher,
1015 years’ experience)

I do not see how people lacking my level of training can take over certain aspects of the teacher’s role – in the same way that I would not expect to take a crash course in medicine and emerge as a qualified doctor after eighteen months. (Male secondary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)

Th e B.M.A. for example would not lower entry requirements…(Male secondary Leadership Group member, 20+ years’ experience).

The Government has identified a number of practical examples of work which could be undertaken by support staff
4) ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER ANCILLARY ROLES
This group included two popular proposals, one which was fairly popular, and one on which views were mixed.
Proposals on administrative and other ancillary roles
18
Health & safety / site managers
Attendance clerks
Timetabling officers
Exam officers
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Mixed views
Agree
Agree strongly
ICT technicians
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Health and safety / site managers
Nearly three-fifths of respondents (56.6%) supported this role, with under a fifth
(15.5%) agreeing strongly. A fifth (22.6%) had mixed views, with fewer (19.2%) being opposed.

Many teachers have reservations about total responsibility for health and safety in schools, especially school visits. (Female under-5s Upper Pay Scale
Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)
There was a curvilinear difference related to age; teachers from 30-50 were most favourable, those over 50 least, with younger teachers intermediate. The effects of length of service were weak: teachers with ten year’s experience or less were more likely to disagree, teachers with 20+ years’ experience to hold other views.
Full-time teachers held the most diverse views, with relatively more agreeing strongly, and disagreeing strongly, than their part-time and supply colleagues, who were more likely to have mixed views or agree. Secondary and sixth-form college staff were much more likely to strongly agree with this proposal than their

19 primary and under-5s colleagues, and less likely to be opposed, reflecting the size of their institutions, leading to different needs for this type of specialised role.
Grant-maintained school and CTC staff were more in favour than those in other school types, reflecting a preference in these institutions, with their academic emphasis, on getting support staff to undertake non-academic tasks.
Attendance clerks
This role was very strongly supported, with three-quarters of respondents
(76.2%) in favour. Half the respondents (49.8%) agreed and a quarter (26.4%) agreed strongly. Less than a tenth of respondents (9.7%) disagreed, and about a tenth (12.6%) had mixed views.

I teach in a school which already has non-teachers – bursar; attendance officer who rings home on first day of absence and has reduced truancy; invigilators who are employed just for this task and ICT technicians – all of whom provide much needed support to teaching staff. (Female secondary
Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)
Younger teachers, especially those under 25, were more likely to have mixed views about this proposal or to disagree, with those between 30 and 50 most favourable; older teachers were least favourable. There was a positive trend with experience, with teachers with five years’ service or under disagreeing or having mixed views, and teachers with 20+ years’ experience relatively more favourable.
Older and more experienced teachers were therefore more relaxed about support staff taking this bureaucratic role. There was a trend across employment status, with full-time staff were more in favour of this proposal, supply teachers
(although a minority of them) more opposed to it, reflecting that the use of support staff in this role assists permanent staff, but takes potential work away from supply staff. The role is very much more popular among staff in secondary schools and sixth-form colleges than those working with younger children, reflecting the size of institutions and greater problems with attendance among older pupils. It was also supported by staff in the academically oriented grantmaintained schools and CTCs.
Timetabling officers
The largest proportion of respondents, 27.2%, had mixed views
– some written-in comments suggested that timetabling required professional teaching knowledge, and this accounts for 16.5% of respondents disagreeing strongly, and nearly a quarter (23.6%) disagreeing. However 22% agreed and 8.4% agreed strongly.
The nature of the timetabling task does, of course, differ considerably between a small primary school and a large secondary school, and the question did not offer the option of draft timetabling being done by support staff, with final validation by a qualified teacher.

20
Younger teachers (below 30), and especially those of 31-40, were more positive about this proposal than, especially, their colleagues over 50. Similarly, there was a consistent trend related to experience, with those having ten years’ experience or less (especially those with 1-
5 years’ experience) relatively favourable, those with 1115 years’ experience having mixed views, and more experienced teachers, especially those with 20+ year’s experience, unfavourable.
More recent recruits to the profession were more willing to delegate this administrative task; longer-serving teachers were more aware of its academic implications. Supply teachers were least willing to delegate it, full-time teachers most willing. Again, this proposal was more strongly supported at secondary and sixth-form college than primary level (though there was a group of secondary teachers who were strongly opposed, as were special school staff), and by staff in grant-maintained and independent schools and CTCs.
Exam officers
Responses to this proposal were fairly evenly distributed across categories, with over a quarter of respondents (25.7%) agreeing, another quarter (25%) having mixed views, and a fifth (20.5%) disagreeing. Fewer agreed strongly (10%) or disagreed strongly (16.7%). Many of the same issues arise for this proposal as for the one on timetabling, but the rather higher level of support arises from the exam officer’s role being more administrative and less managerial than the timetabling officer’s, though there were doubts:-

I think the parents in our school want, and many would demand that, a qualified teacher was liaising with them, e.g. in the recent “fall-out” from AS /
A2 exam results, many parents wanted to speak to the teachers. They would not have accepted reassurances from an assistant. (Female secondary Head of Department, 1115 years’ experience)
Again this was a role supported by teachers under 30, and especially those of
31-40, and opposed by teachers over 50, and there is the same trend with experience, for similar reasons to that described above for timetabling officers.
There was again a very strong trend across employment status, with full-time staff most in favour and supply staff most opposed. This role was also much more popular among secondary teachers, and sixth-form college staff, reflecting the greater salience of exams at secondary level than in primary, under-5s and special schools; LEA centrally employed teachers also disagreed strongly.
Inspectors and advisers were relatively more likely to agree strongly with this proposal, as with several others. Staff in grant-maintained and independent schools and CTCs were again in favour.
ICT technicians
This is another highly popular role, with a very similar distribution of responses to that for the attendance clerk role. Again, over three-quarters of respondents

21
(77.4%) support the use of support staff in this role, with half (48.1%) agreeing rather than agreeing strongly; about a tenth (12%) had mixed views, with less than a tenth (9.3%) disagreeing.

ICT technicians
– more specialist and time consuming – separate role needed. (Female special school Main Scale, 610 years’ experience)
In contrast to the previous two roles, teachers under 30 were relatively more likely to have mixed views about or to disagree with this role for support staff, with teachers over 40 having a more favourable attitude. There is a similar consistent trend with experience, those with ten years’ experience or less, especially those with 1-
5 years’ experience, being less in favour, and those with
20+ years’ experience more supportive. The increasing salience of ICT on training courses, and the increasing user-friendliness and flexibility of recent ICT, give recent recruits to the profession more confidence in their ability to cope with
ICT and less feeling of a need for support, than their longer-serving colleagues.
Again there was a trend across employment status; full-time teachers were relatively most likely to agree strongly and supply teachers to have mixed views, or merely to agree. This was again a role supported much more strongly by secondary teachers, and to a lesser extent their sixth-form college colleagues, reflecting the greater complexity of ICT at secondary level, and also by grantmaintained school and CTC staff.
Overall
Responses to most of these proposals were positive, with more respondents agreeing than disagreeing: the exception is the role which involves most managerial and professional judgement, that of timetabling officer. There is a clear trend between the amount of support for a proposed role and the amount of technical administrative work it involves. It is likely that support would have been even higher for the Government proposals (DfES 2002a) to remove a range of types of low-level bureaucracy from the normal workload of teachers, given the opposition to them in a previous survey of Union members (Neill 1998).

22
5) ROLES INVOLVING CONTACT WITH PUPILS AND PARENTS, BUT NOT
INVOLVING TEACHING ACTIVITY
These five proposals evoked mixed responses, with the proposal for invigilators being relatively favourably regarded, but the proposal for cover supervisors, like the proposal that support staff should cover for teachers, being unpopular.
Proposals for roles involving contact with pupils and parents, but not involving teaching activity
Invigilators
Behaviour managers
Careers advisers
Learning mentors / advice & guidance
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Mixed views
Agree
Agree strongly
Cover supervisors
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Invigilators
Over half the respondents (57.9%) supported this role, with 38.9% agreeing and a fifth (19%) agreeing strongly. A fifth (21.9%) had mixed views, and less than a fifth (18.4%) were opposed. Some written-in comments indicated that a qualified teacher needed to be present to deal with any academic queries made by the candidates.

If the government has enough money to provide this kind of [classroom] support, then it would be worth more, by employing people to cover administrative tasks – data input, invigilation.(Female secondary Main Scale,
1-
5 years’ experience)

In lower schools at KS1 and possibly KS2, children need to feel secure and confident when taking SATs (tests) & a teacher who is familiar with them is their safest invigilator. Also the teacher will understand their individual needs.
(Female primary Leadership Group member, 1620 years’ experience)

Already in place in our school but one teacher minimum needs to be present to safeguard the professional standards required at exam level & who knows

23 the emergency procedures in the school etc. (Female secondary Upper Pay
Scale Teacher, 1115 years’ experience)
There was a contrast between teachers over 50, who were more likely to have mixed views about or oppose this role, and their younger colleagues, especially between 26 and 40, who were more likely to be favourable. There was a similar strong trend with experience, teachers with under five years’ experience being most positive, and those with over twenty years’ experience most negative. This suggests that, as with timetabling, experienced teachers took the academic implications of delegating this task more seriously than their less experienced colleagues. Again there was a trend across employment status; supply teachers were relatively most strongly opposed to this proposal, or had mixed views; parttime teachers were relatively more likely to have mixed views, and full-time teachers to be in favour. Female teachers were less enthusiastic about support staff taking on this duty than men: this reflects the comments above, about young children needing a familiar adult, and the greater proportion of women among the teachers of younger children. For the same reason, the role was much more popular among secondary teachers and their sixth-form college colleagues than among the teachers of younger children, and it was also more strongly supported by staff in grant-maintained and independent schools, and in CTCs.
Behaviour managers
Over a fifth of respondents (22%) strongly disagreed with this proposal; with those who disagreed (20.6%), approaching half the respondents were opposed, with nearly a third (31.1%) having mixed views. A fifth (19.3%) supported the proposal, with 5.6% supporting it strongly. As for the proposal on covering classes, the opposition reflects concern as to whether support staff would have the authority to deal with difficult behaviour.

All the roles from [behaviour manager] onwards need to be undertaken by people who understand the needs of the learner and the needs, and role, of the teacher. They would also need to be qualified in whatever field they desired to work. Some of the proposals would actually eat into teachers’ time.
(Female LEA Centrally Employed Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)

Behaviour managers would need to have a qualification – perhaps social work or other. Not a job for unqualified staff. Female Pupil Referral Unit Upper
Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)
Again this was a role relatively more favoured by teachers under 40, especially those of 25 or under; the over-50s were particularly strongly opposed. Similarly there was a consistent trend with experience, those with 1-5 years experience being most positive, those with 20+ years most negative. Both for this and the previous category, recent recruits are more willing to delegate duties to support staff, experienced staff more wary. Supply teachers were most strongly opposed,

24 followed by part-time staff, with full-time staff relatively supportive: full-time staff are more likely to be able to build up a relationship with the behaviour manager than supply or part-time staff, who are therefore likely to find the manager of limited assistance. This was another role more popular among secondary teachers, reflecting the greater problems with behaviour in this phase, and their sixth-form college colleagues. Again grant-maintained and independent school, and CTC, staff were in favour, but differences were relatively limited, reflecting limited behavioural problems in these institutions. Special school and LEA centrally employed teachers were relatively more likely to disagree strongly, reflecting their specific expertise.
Careers advisers
Over a third of respondents (37.4%) supported this proposal, with a tenth (9.6%) supporting it strongly. Over a quarter (27.6%) had mixed views, and a third were opposed, fairly evenly divided between those who disagreed (17.5%) and those disagreeing strongly (15.6%). This pattern of responses reflects the fact that, though the role of careers adviser is an educative one, it requires specialist knowledge which not all teachers possess, and involves much one-to-one interaction which does not require the specialist class management skills of a teacher.
Like the previous two roles, teachers under 30 were relatively more likely to support this role and those of 31-40 even more so; teachers over 50 to be opposed, and there was a strong trend with experience, again reflecting the greater willingness of recent recruits to the profession to delegate. There was the usual trend across employment status, with supply staff most opposed and fulltime staff relatively most supportive. Again, reflecting the greater relevance of this role at secondary level, it was much more strongly supported by secondary and sixth-form college staff than other groups, with special school and LEA centrally employed teachers relatively more likely to disagree strongly. Grantmaintained and independent school, and CTC, staff were again relatively supportive.
Learning mentors / advice and guidance
The pattern of responses to this proposal was very similar to that for careers advisers, though with a higher percentage of respondents agreeing (32.5%) and having mixed views (30.2%) and fewer agreeing strongly (8.6%), disagreeing
(15.1%), and disagreeing strongly (12.1%). In many ways this role involves a similar range of skills to that of careers adviser, accounting for the similar response.

In my school support staff do undertake some administrative duties, drama groups and are behaviour/learning mentors. They do these under the

25 direction of a teacher but not under their direct supervision. This works well.
(Female primary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 610 years’ experience)
This proposal was relatively strongly supported by all three age groups under 40, as opposed to staff over 50, whose views were evenly divided. There was a consistent trend with experience, with the most experienced teachers (20+ years’ experience) most opposed, and the least experienced (1-
5 years’ experience) relatively most favourable; again newer recruits to the profession are more willing to delegate. Again, supply teachers were most opposed, full-time teachers most supportive, and part-time staff intermediate. This was also another role more strongly supported by secondary teachers than other groups reflecting the greater need for this type of assistance at secondary level. Inspectors and advisers also agreed relatively strongly, as did grant-maintained school and CTC staff, but independent and voluntary-aided / controlled school staff were more negative, suggesting that staff in these types saw this role more as their own responsibility.
Cover supervisors
Nearly a third of respondents (29.8%) were strongly opposed to this role, with a quarter (24.6%) opposed. A quarter (24.6%) had mixed views, and less than a fifth(13.3%) supported the proposal, with only a minority (5.4%) agreeing strongly with it. This pattern shows some similarities to, but is more negative than, the pattern of responses for the role of behaviour manager, and again relates to concerns about the authority of support staff.

In our inner city primary school, there is no way an assistant could handle the discipline required to manage a class on their own. (Female Leadership
Group member, 1620 years’ experience)
Again, staff under 30, and especially those of 31-40, rated this proposal relatively more favourably than those over 50, and yet again there was a strong trend related to experience, with recently qualified teachers more willing to delegate and their experienced colleagues more wary. Full-time staff were more in favour of this proposal, supply staff being more strongly opposed and part-time staff having mixed views; again the introduction of non-teacher support staff is seen as a threat to the work prospects of teachers who are not permanent staff. This was yet another task which was more popular with secondary teachers, and to a lesser extent, sixth-form staff than with their colleagues teaching younger age groups and LEA centrally employed teachers. Once again, staff in grantmaintained and independent schools and in CTCs were relatively favourable.
Overall
These four roles include pairs requiring different skills, to which respondents reacted differently. Though many respondents had concerns, overall there was a

26 positive attitude to the two roles which involved supporting learning on a largely individualised basis – careers advisers and learning mentors. Overall, responses were negative to the pair of roles which could involve dealing with difficult pupil behaviour
– behaviour managers and cover supervisors. This is not unreasonable given that, if support staff encounter problems which they are unable to cope with, qualified teachers will have to take over to deal with a problem which might not have been allowed to get out of control if an effective qualified teacher had been present to deal with the situation in the first place.
Recovering the situation after inadequacies in the front-line response might thus increase rather than decrease tea chers’ work- and stress loads. This is the most likely reason that experienced teachers, who have encountered these problems, regard these proposals with more suspicion than their younger colleagues.

6) ROLES INVOLVING FULLER CONTACT WITH PUPILS AND PARENTS
–
INVOLVING TEACHING ACTIVITY, SUBJECT TO SUPERVISION BY A
QUALIFIED TEACHER
Three of these four proposals evoked responses which were, on balance, positive; the fourth, that for high level teaching assistants, evoked a very much more mixed response.
Proposals on roles involving fuller contact with pupils and parents involving teaching activity, subject to supervision by a qualified teacher
27
High level teaching assistants
Sports coaches
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Mixed views
Agree
Agree strongly
Music & drama specialists
Language assistants
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
High level teaching assistants
Responses to this proposal were fairly evenly distributed; fewer respondents disagreed with the proposal (15.8%) than agreed with it (26.9%), but over twice as many respondents disagreed strongly (21.2%) as agreed strongly (8.2%). A quarter of respondents (26.8%) had mixed views. These responses are intermediate between those for the proposals ‘Assist teaching and learning while teachers are present’ and ‘Lead some teaching and learning in their own right without teachers be ing present’ and thus reflect the intermediate level of responsibility in this role. The proposal attracted plentiful comments:-

There are areas of the curriculum where advanced / higher level assistants would be very helpful, releasing me to plan, liaise or teach, e.g. PE, art, D&T, music. (Female primary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 11-
15 years’ experience)

If learning support are qualified or experienced in these fields they would be suitable to teach these subjects. (Female LEA Centrally Employed Teacher
(main scale), 6-
10 years’ experience)

28

I am a SpLD teacher who works very closely with TAs, some with SpLD qualifications. It means that, under my supervision, they work very successfully in a 1-1 situation – I have also trained them up. These are people who would not want to be a classroom teacher – do not want the stress, well aware of the problems from supporting difficult children in the classroom. However in my SpLD Base they are excellent and I would like to see them financially rewarded for it. (Female secondary Upper Pay Scale
Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)

Only in presence of qualified teacher. (Female Pupil Referral Unit Upper Pay
Scale Teacher, 1115 years’ experience)

As a Head of Dept I am stunned at the suggestion that I would monitor the perfo rmance of high level teaching assistants every half term. When? I don’t have enough non-contact time to monitor my NQTs, never mind the rest of the department. (Female secondary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 610 years’ experience)

It also sounds as if observin g, supporting and monitoring ‘high level teaching assistants’ would take up even more time for teachers who are already overworked, so the only real benefits would be the financial benefits for the government and the school management. Everyone else would have more work for no more pay. (Female LEA Centrally Employed Main Scale Teacher,
11-
15 years’ experience)

Where are these Super Assistants going to come from, especially in London?
We’ve been advertising for our new Special School for months and have had very little success. (No personal details given)

It is very difficult to get the right quality of teaching assistant at present
– even in an auxiliary role. I am fortunate that I now have an excellent one. Even so she requires support and supervision. There are many T.A.s who lack motivation and initiative. (Female primary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)
Views on this proposal showed a fairly steady trend across age groups, younger teachers being most supportive, though with the strongest support among 26-30year-olds, and over-50s being most strongly opposed. There was a similar strong trend with experience; as for many of the proposals in the previous section, more recently qualified staff were more willing to delegate. Also similar to the previous section was the trend across employment status, with supply teachers most opposed and full-time teachers most supportive; super assistants could be an occupational threat to supply, agency and part-time teachers. This was a role which was more popular among primary and especially special school teachers than their colleagues in other sectors, reflecting their greater experience of specialised assistance. Inspectors and advisers were also more likely to strongly agree. There were no differences related to school status.
Sports coaches

29
Over half the respondents agreed with this proposal, with most agreeing (43.8%) rather than agreeing strongly (10.2%). A quarter (27%) had mixed views and a fifth were opposed, fairly evenly divided between disagreement (9.3%) and strong disagreement (8.9%). The higher level of agreement with this proposal, compared to the previous one on high level teaching assistants, despite the similarities in levels of educational responsibility, reflects the more specialist knowledge of the sports coach and is mirrored by the responses to the next two proposals for specialist support staff.

In non-academic areas such as sport/art – which are equally valuable to academic areas - students should have access to people with qualifications in these areas. (Female secondary Main Scale, 20+ years’ experience)

The only area where I find the employment of assistants acceptable is where they have specialist skills i.e. sports coaches, music and drama specialists – this could be useful, especially in the primary sector where a teacher is expected to have specialist skills across the curriculum. (Female primary
Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 1620 years’ experience)
This proposal showed a similar trend across age groups (though with 31-40 year olds more favourable), experience levels, and employment status, to the proposal on high-level assistants. Phase differences were weak, but specialised sports coaching was more valued at secondary level, but both at primary and secondary level individual respondents held a wide variety of views. Inspectors and advisers were relatively more likely to agree strongly. Differences related to school status were relatively slight, with divergent views among grant-maintained and independent school staff, and some opposition among LEA-maintained school staff.
Music and drama specialists
The pattern of responses was similar to, but less positive than that for, the proposal on sports coaches; nearly half the respondents (45%) supported the proposal, but with only a minority (9.1%) agreeing strongly: over a quarter
(28.1%) had mixed views, and a quarter, evenly divided between disagreement
(12.8%) and strong disagreement (13.3%), were opposed. This reflects the less specialist nature of these roles, especially in primary schools; many teachers of
English will have knowledge of drama, and a proportion of primary teachers have an interest in, and feel able to teach, music at the appropriate level. However, this proposal has caused great concern among drama and music specialist teachers.

I strongly support involving specialists from a particular subject, such as drama, music and sport coaches as it would bring a much wider perspective that could only enhance a child’s knowledge and learning. (Female special school Main Scale, 15 years’ experience)

30

The proposals for Music and Drama are outrageous! They reveal a depth of ignorance about the teaching of these subjects which will deeply discourage yet again teachers in the Arts. Please do everything to prevent this! (Male secon dary Leadership Group member, 20+ years’ experience)
This proposal showed similar trends with age (decreasing support with increasing age), experience and employment status to the previous two. Phase differences were weak, but this was another role more popular with secondary teachers; the small group of LEA Centrally Employed Teachers, who were more likely to be peripatetic specialists in these areas, had mixed views. Inspectors/ advisers were more favourable. There were no differences related to school status.
Language assistants
The pattern of responses to this proposal was closely similar to that for sports coaches, reflecting the similar specialist nature of the knowledge required. Again a majority of respondents supported the proposal, with most agreeing (43.8%) rather than agreeing strongly (10.4%). A quarter was undecided, with less than a fifth opposed, evenly divided between disagreement and strong disagreement.
This proposal showed the same consistent trend towards lower support among older and more experienced teachers as the previous proposals in this group, though teachers with 20+ years experience were also more likely to have mixed views. It also showed the same trend between relative opposition by supply teachers and support by full-time teachers, with part-time teachers intermediate.
Again this was a proposal more supported by secondary, and also sixth-form college staff than their colleagues in other sectors, but favourably viewed by inspectors/advisers. Grant-maintained school staff were supportive, but independent school staff had mixed views.
Overall
Responses to these proposals reflected how specialist the knowledge involved was, being strongest for sports and modern languages, where much of the learning involves specific motor or linguistic skills, intermediate for music and drama, and least for general high-level assistants, where knowledge was most likely to overlap with the teacher. In some cases opposition was mainly to the fact that the proposals involved supervision of the support staff, rather than directly to the involvement of support staff themselves – time spent in supervision, even where it gave pupils a richer experience, could mean not much reduction in workload from teachers carrying out the role directly themselves.
 To support and supervise ‘support staff’ in teaching activities is a waste of teachers’ time – they might as well be doing it themselves. Teachers will have to spend huge amounts of time training ‘support staff’ to teach specialist

31 subjects such as art, music, etc. (Female secondary Main Scale, 6-
10 years’ experience)

I believe, and I have always found it to be the case, that learning is enhanced when a variety of adult roles and specialist contributions are present. In technology I have worked with highly skilled technicians advising pupils’ thinking and work outcomes. Therefore I have no problem, whatsoever, with other adults being present in my teaching environment. However it needs to be clear that the teacher is being promoted as the professional expert in the classroom. The teacher will need enhanced pay and conditions to undertake what is a continuous management and monitoring/supervisory role of any support staff. (Male secondary Main Scale, 20+ years’ experience)
These proposals were more strongly supported in the secondary school, with its need for specialist assistance and existing tradition of specialist compartmentalisation, than in sectors such as primary where teachers expect to satisfy children’s educational needs largely on their own. However older and more experienced teachers feel less inclined to delegate in these ways than more recent recruits to the profession, reflecting an awareness of the possible pitfalls.

32
7) SENIOR STAFF ROLES OF A MANAGERIAL KIND
The two technical proposals in this group, for business managers and facilities managers, evoked more favourable responses than those involving interpersonal management – human relations managers and lead behaviour managers.
Proposals on senior staff roles of a managerial kind
Business managers / bursars
Human relations / personnel managers
Lead behaviour managers
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Mixed views
Agree
Agree strongly
Facilities managers
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Business managers / bursars
Over two-fifths of respondents supported this proposal, with nearly a third of all respondents (31.7%) agreeing, the remainder (11.5%) agreeing strongly.
Approaching a quarter (23.3%) had mixed views and a third were evenly divided between disagreement (16.4%) and strong disagreement (15.9%). While the role of business manager or bursar is one which is critical to the good running of a school and the job satisfaction of teachers, it is one which many teachers are unlikely to feel they have the competence for. Many teachers may feel it better to have a non-teacher specialist than a teacher non-specialist doing the job in their school, especially if it is a large one.
 The role of BURSAR is needed even in primary schools. Much of the H/T’s work is now more like bursar duties. (Female primary H ead, 20+ years’ experience)

I believe that Managerial Support, i.e. Bursars, do not need QTS however anyone teaching children should have this qualification. (Female primary Main
Scale, 15 years’ experience)

33
Younger teachers (up to 30) and less experienc ed teachers (up to 10 years’ experience) were relatively more likely to have mixed views or disagree – an exception to the general trend for them to approve of wider roles for support staff, and possibly reflecting less familiarity with this role; more experienced teachers
(20+ years) had divergent views, with the group containing relatively more teachers who agreed than who disagreed strongly. However the age analysis shows that those who agreed were in their 40s, and also some of those in their
50s, i.e. managers with progressive views, while those who disagreed were in their 50s. As with other proposals, support was greatest from full-time staff, least from supply staff, with part-timers intermediate. The relative size and complexity of secondary schools and sixth-form colleges accounts for this proposal being much more popular among secondary staff than their colleagues in other sectors, though inspectors and advisers were again relatively favourable. Grantmaintained and CTC staff were once again relatively favourable.
Human Relations / personnel managers
The largest proportion of respondents, approaching a third (29.7%), had mixed views on this proposal. A fifth 21.1%) disagreed strongly with the proposal, with another fifth (22%) disagreeing. A fifth (20.6%) agreed with the proposal and
5.4% agreed strongly.
 I don’t think that support staff who are working themselves with teachers in classrooms can feasibly be expected to be personnel managers or cover supervisors as this will cause rifts in staff rel ations…this would apply to other managerial roles also. (Female primary part-time Upper Pay Scale Teacher,
20+ years’ experience)
This proposal showed a curvilinear trend with age, with teachers of 31-40 most in favour, those of 50+ most opposed, and those under 30 intermediate. However there was a linear trend with experience, with less experienced teachers relatively more likely to agree and teachers with over 20 years’ service more likely to disagree strongly. There is also the usual trend for relative support by full-time teachers and opposition by supply teachers, with part-time teachers intermediate. Again, this proposal was much more popular in secondary schools and sixth-form colleges than in other phases, for similar reasons to the previous proposal; inspectors and advisers were again relatively favourable, as were grant-maintained school and CTC staff.
Lead behaviour managers
Reactions to this proposal were more hostile than to the previous two, with over a quarter of respondents (28.6%) disagreeing strongly, over a quarter (27.6%) disagreeing, and over a quarter (28.7%) having mixed views. Only about 10% of respondents agreed with the proposal and less than 5% strongly agreed with it.
Relatively more respondents disagreed with this proposal, and fewer agreed,

34 than for the earlier proposal that support staff should be behaviour managers, reflecting the previous concerns that support staff might not have the authority to undertake behaviour management role, but with more serious consequences if they were undertaking leadership in this function.

This is an interesting idea. Behaviour management could be a non-teaching role; however those appointed would have to be trained in certain aspects of the job of a teacher! (Male secondary Upper Pay Scale Te acher, 20+ years’ experience)

I work closely with teacher support staff. They are a valuable asset when they are guided and set a framework by the teacher. I have not felt that their assistance has been successful in situations demanding high levels of professionalism and pedagogical skills e.g.
 dealing with troubled/demanding families with known social problems, histories of abuse etc.

highly confidential matters
 potentially dangerous situations
(Female secondary Leadership Group member, 20+ years’ experience)
There was a consistent trend with age and experience, younger and less experienced teachers being more supportive and older and longer-serving ones opposed. Male teachers were more likely to strongly disagree with this proposal than women, but this was another proposal which was more popular in secondary schools and sixth-form colleges. However LEA Centrally Employed teachers and staff in PRUS, where behaviour management is likely to be more difficult, were more likely to be strongly opposed to this proposal. Grantmaintained and independent school, and CTC staff, were relatively favourable, but the difference in support was at a weaker level – agreement rather than strong agreement. Again there was a trend across employment status, with most support from full-time teachers and least from supply teachers.
Facilities managers
Responses to this proposal were very similar to those for the proposal related to business managers, though with rather fewer respondents agreeing and disagreeing strongly. Over a third of the respondents supported this proposal, with most agreeing (28.4%) rather than agreeing strongly (7.8%); nearly a third
(30.1%) had mixed views and nearly a third opposed the proposal, evenly split between disagreement (15.7%) and strong disagreement (15.4%). As for business managers, the essentially technical nature of the job seems the explanation for the response.
 The role of SITE MANAGER also needs to be considered. Much of the HT’s time can be taken up organising refurbishments, decorations & all sorts of tradesmen. (Female primary head, 20+ years’ experience)

35

Site manager/ICT technician (title nowhere near describes this crucial role) – helps teaching staff and management team to devise teaching materials for use in classrooms, has devised various formulae for monitoring various aspects of the school’s work – aspects of behaviour management etc., also ensures that ICT hardware kept in good working order
– deals with troubleshooting if ICT fails. (Female primary head, 20+ years’ experience)

If this = bookings/admin then strongly agree. Admin tasks can be done by support staff. (Female secondary Leadership Group member, 20+ years’ experience)
This proposal gained strongest agreement from teachers in their thirties and forties, the middle-management groups who would gain most from being able to delegate the tasks to support staff; teachers over 50 were again most opposed.
Length of service showed a consistent trend, with recent recruits being more supportive and longer-serving teachers more opposed. Here the recent recruits are likely to include the supportive group in their thirties and forties, mentioned above, who will have had experience of similar delegation in their previous jobs.
Supply teachers were again least supportive, full-time teachers most so, with part-timers intermediate. Like the role of business manager, and for the same reasons, this role was much more popular with secondary and sixth-form college staff than with their colleagues in other sectors. LEA centrally employed teachers were relatively strongly opposed and inspectors and advisers relatively favourable. Again staff in grant-maintained and independent schools and in
CTCs were relatively supportive.
Overall
A small proportion of respondents did not answer these questions because they did not feel precisely sure of what these less familiar roles involved. However the responses reflect the same pattern as seen in the previous section: business and facilities managers, like sports and language coaches, carry out relatively specialised technical functions and many teachers support these roles being left to the specialists. It is notable that these roles were more popular among secondary teachers and sixth-form staff, where there is more scope for specialism, though as the comments indicate, there was also some support at primary level. Though the role of human relations or personnel manager also involves specialism, teachers are less happy for it to be carried out by someone who does not understand teaching from the inside. However this role has less potential day-to-day impact than the remaining one, that of lead behaviour manager, where qualified teachers have severe reservations, if they see themselves as possibly having to clear up crises created by non-teachers.

These are separate well-defined roles & staff should be recruited just for these – not as a move for TSA’s. (Female special school Main Scale, 6-10 years’ experience)

36
8) The Government has outlined other proposals for staff without qualified teacher status
This was an unpopular group of proposals, matched only by the proposals for support staff to cover lessons and for them to lead teaching and learning in their own right.
Other proposals for staff without qualified teacher status
More managers from outside education without qualified teacher status should be appointed
Teachers from further education, sixth form colleges and independent schools should be appointed to teach in schools even when they do not have qualified teacher status
There should be a fast track mechanism by which proven leaders from other sectors can achieve qualified teacher status and NPQH
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Mixed views
Agree
Agree strongly
More managers from outside education without qualified teacher status should be appointed
Over two-thirds of respondents (68.1%) did not support with this proposal, with approaching half (45.2%) of them disagreeing strongly. A fifth (21.5%) had mixed views, and only a small minority (7.7%) supported the proposal. The more wideranging nature of management responsibilities implied by this proposal, as opposed to the relatively restricted remit of timetable or behaviour managers, or the wider but still restricted remit of lead behaviour managers, accounts for the stronger opposition to this proposal. As discussed in the previous section for lead behaviour managers, teachers are concerned that their professional judgement could be overridden by managers who do not share the teachers’ viewpoint.
Respondents with experience outside schools had some practical experience to back up their concerns – the NHS was seen as a particularly valid analogy.

I think having lots more managerial roles filled by non-teaching staff will be a waste of money. They will have to be paid lots of money to encourage them to do the job and leave other businesses. I can imagine them treating a school like a business, and expecting to make a profit by e.g. not buying text

37 books or science equipment
– just like the NHS-style fiascos we always hear about. (Female secondary Main Scale, 510 years’ experience)

My only real concern about administrators who are not QTS is that a situation develops, like that of the NHS, of highly paid administrators/managers & lower paid ‘front line’ staff. (Female primary Main Scale, 11-15 years’ experience)

In any situation, I would want the staff member to have a thorough knowledge of ‘how schools work’ – the application of production/business thinking (such as we have seen in the NHS) cannot be applied to the complex interpersonal relationships in a school. (Male primary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 11-16 years’ experience)

Most offensive of all, however, is the idea of employing senior managers with no teaching experience. We are an educational institution not a business. As a teacher governor I am currently involved in a PFI project at our school – we are applying for Specialist School Status and a whole range of other initiatives to get private sector involvement. I find it patronising and insulting to my profession to suggest that people with no experience of teaching should manage teachers. (Male secondary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 610 years’ experience)

Using non-teachers to manage teachers is bad news for teachers as these managers are usually not sympathetic to teachers’ needs. I left F.E. to work in schools because of the very poor way we were treated there. If you want to see how these changes would affect schools just see what has happened in
F.E. (Male secondary Main Scale, 11-
16 years’ experience)
Teachers under 25, and those with less than five years’ service, had the most diverse views, being over-represented in all categories except strong disagreement; teachers in their forties were relatively likely to have mixed views.
This suggests that the least opposed groups were new entrants and those actually dealing with the problems of managing schools. Teachers over 50, and those with 20+ years’ service were most opposed, but teachers with 6-15 years’ service were also hostile, this being the group likely to be supplanted by recruits from outside. This proposal was more strongly rejected by under-5s and primary teachers than their colleagues in other sectors, reflecting the lesser need for specialist managers in these phases. It was particularly unpopular with staff in voluntary-aided schools. The effects of employment status were weak, though supply teachers were more likely to disagree strongly and part-time teachers to have mixed views or to agree than their full-time colleagues.
Teachers from further education, sixth form colleges and independent schools should be appointed to teach in schools even when they do not have qualified teacher status
This proposal attracted a similar, but more hostile, range of responses compared to the previous proposal on managers. Over half the respondents (52.2%) disagreed strongly with the proposal, and a quarter (25.2%) disagreed: most of

38 the remaining fifth of respondents had mixed views(14.9%), leaving 5.1% in agreement. Some older respondents recalled the days before recruitment to teaching became all-graduate and all-QTS, and written-in responses reflected both a lack of confidence that these recruits could cope, and anger at the implication that their own investment in education and training was worthless, if anyone could do the job.

Providing a non-qualified teacher has a sound pedagogical understanding and empathy with all aspects that come under the umbrella of teaching this will succeed. (Male secondary Main Scale, 15 years’ experience)

I am old enough to remember unqualified teachers being employed in the
1960s. (Female primary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)

Why does this government think it can take short-cuts to try to solve the recruitment and retention crisis? The idea that they are giving out is that
ANYONE can stand in front of a class. (Female primary supply Main Scale, 6-
10 years’ experience)

Teaching is a specialised skill. Professionals of high calibre are required who have successfully completed relevant teaching courses. (Female secondary
Main Scale, 1620 years’ experience)
Though a majority of all age groups disagreed, the under-25s were relatively more likely to disagree; having recently gone through the process and expense of qualification, they were opposed to ‘back-door’ entry. However the 1-5 years’ service group had a wider range of views, being over-represented in all categories except ‘strongly disagree’. The difference reflects the fact that most under-25s will have gone through the conventional higher-education-based training route, whereas the recently qualified group includes late entrants, some of whom will have entered, or would have preferred to enter, the profession via the more recently instituted routes, or have had to endure a period of low income during training. They therefore have less respect for conventional training, and less feeling that all recruits have to endure it. Groups between 26 and 50 had mixed views. Over50s and those with 20+ years’ service were relatively more likely to disagree strongly, and there was a weak effect, similar to that for the next proposal, for those with 11-
15 years’ service to be opposed and those with
16-20 years to be in favour – corresponding to the groups who were still seeking promotion, and were therefore at risk, and those who had already got it. Again, under-5s and primary teachers were most strongly opposed; the likely recruits, with their secondary bias, would be least appropriate for these phases. As for the previous question, staff in voluntary-aided schools were most strongly opposed, whereas those in grant-maintained and independent schools, CTCs and academies were more likely to have mixed views or agree, reflecting the fact that staff in these types are more likely to have entered their posts from outside education. Once again, there was a trend, but a weak one, across employment status, with supply teachers most opposed, part-time teachers intermediate, and full-time teachers more likely to have mixed views or agree.

39
There should be a fast track mechanism by which proven leaders from other sectors can achieve qualified teacher status and NPQH
Though over half the respondents (52.7%) were opposed to this proposal, with a third (33.7%) strongly disagreeing with it, opposition was less strong than to the previous two proposals. Over a quarter of respondents (27.9%) had mixed views on the proposal, and less than a fifth (16.6%) supported the proposal, though only 3.3% of these agreed strongly. Given the strong opposition in a previous survey of Union members to fast-tracking for teachers (Neill 2001), it is not surprising that fast-tracking for others was not greeted with enthusiasm, but, as some written-in comments indicated, if teachers have to live with fast-tracking, it was only fair that the fast-track should be imposed on others.

With a huge teacher shortage and many skilled people in industry who could be easily adapted to a teacher’s job, why wouldn’t the government take advantage of these people rather than increase demands on support assistants who have to SUPPORT and ASSIST? (Male primary Main Scale,
15 years’ experience)
 Teaching is a calling, and should be worked at. If these ‘proven leaders’ want to become teachers, they should work at it like the rest of us! Can I get on a fast track business management course as a proven teacher? (Female under-
5s Main Scale, 6-
10 years’ experience)

Proven leaders do not necessarily make good teachers or good managers in schools – a very peculiar environment. (Female secondary Upper Pay Scale
Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)

Successful leaders outside teaching should not be fast tracked. They should take the normal length of course for qualified teacher status. They need the experience of teaching
– it’s completely different from what the majority of the population believe. (Female primary Main Scale, 610 years’ experience)

The idea of other adults from other professions and classroom assistants achieving parity of status and pay with myself (and probably getting more) would be the last straw! (Male primary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)
This proposal was most strongly opposed by teachers in their thirties, the group most at risk of being supplanted by fast-track appointments, but 26-30 and 41-50 year olds were also opposed. Under-25s were relatively more likely to have mixed views and over-50s to have mixed views or to agree with it. However the pattern related to experience was rather different, though some aspects were consistent. There was opposition by teachers with 615 years’ experience, corresponding to those in their thirties, mentioned above, and relatively more support by teachers with 1620 years’ experience, corresponding to teachers in their forties who were already established in management. However there was strongest agreement from teachers with 1-
5 years’ experience, again reflecting the influence of mature entrants, who could have seen pre-existing experience as a passport to rapid advancement. The effects of employment status were

40 relatively weak; full-time teachers were less supportive of this proposal, and parttime teachers had more mixed views. Again primary and under-5s staff were most strongly opposed to this proposal; staff in PRUs, LEA centrally employed teachers and inspectors and advisers were relatively more likely to be in favour.
As for the previous proposal, voluntary-aided school staff were most strongly opposed and independent and grant-maintained school, and CTC, staff relatively favourable.
Overall
These three proposals differ in that the first two pose the problem that the professional lives of qualified teachers could be made more difficult by their having to cope with directives from managers without an educational background, or by having to cope with colleagues who lack the background of education and training which they see as essential to qualified teacher status.
These two proposals therefore attract the same high level of hostility as the proposal that support staff should lead teaching and learning without a teacher being present (first section of the proposals), though less hostility than the proposal that support staff should cover for teacher absence. In all four cases most respondents react from the viewpoint that the proposals challenge and dilute the all-graduate and fully qualified status which the profession has, though there are dissenting voices.
The third proposal, for a fast track, differs, and attracts a lower level of hostility, because it extends to others what teachers already have imposed upon themselves.

41
9) Relationships between the proposals
Factor analysis was used to identify groups of proposals for which individual respondents gave similar answers: this indicates that respondents see the functions described in these grouped proposals as functions of a similar nature.
The factors were then used to make a structural model which aimed to give a global view of the relationships between the factors and the influences on them.
Technical details of the analysis are given in Appendix III, the factors in Appendix
IX and differences between groups of respondents in Appendix X. In general the factors obtained follow the section groups indicated above in the discussion of the questionnaire, but there are some interesting cross-overs and relationships between groups of proposals.
The first factor group centres around a group of proposals for technical support functions
– that support staff should act as attendance clerks, ICT technicians, health & safety/site managers, examination officers, timetabling officers invigilators and careers advisors. As indicated above in the discussion of individual proposals, they are popular, especially with teachers in secondary schools and sixth form colleges, but they were significantly less popular with supply teachers than with their part-time and full-time colleagues, reflecting that the allocation of these duties to support staff potentially takes work away from supply teachers. Proposals relating to business managers, and facilities managers, which appear in a following factor, also have relatively high loadings on this factor, indicating the inter-relationship between the factors.
This factor has the highest mean rating, indicating the support for these proposals by most respondents. Popularity showed a strong and consistent trend across age groups, with the younger age groups more supportive and the older ones less supportive. Though there were significant differences between teachers occupying different positions from Main Scale to Head, there was no consistent trend in attitudes related to status in the hierarchy. However the 16-20 years’ service group, which contains many in management positions, was the most supportive, being the exception to the general trend for decreasing support with increasing length of service. Supply teachers were much more negative about this factor than their part- and full-time colleagues; the full-timers gave slightly higher approval ratings. Sixth form college and secondary teachers rated this proposal highest, reflecting the greater value of these technical and specialist functions in large institutions which are teaching at a complex academic level.
For the same reasons, they were rated more highly by staff in CTCs, grantmaintained schools and academies. Reflecting the greater representation of men at secondary level, the proposals were more popular with male than female teachers.
The second factor group covers a range of teaching ancillary proposals
– that support staff should act as music and drama specialists, sports coaches, language assistants, and high level teaching assistants. The first three of these

42 proposals are relatively popular, because they involve the support staff giving the teacher technical assistance rather than challenging her authority. The last proposal, for high level teaching assistants, is rather separate from the other three, as reflected in its much lower loading on this factor: it also has a fairly high loading on the sixth factor, and acts as a bridge between this factor and the two proposals on the sixth factor, for support staff to be involved in teaching.
While not as popular as the proposals on the first factor, on average respondents tended to support these proposals. Again there was a strong and consistent trend across age groups and length of service, with younger teachers more supportive and older teachers less so. However Heads, Deputy Heads and
Assistant Heads were more supportive than their colleagues in lower status positions, reflecting the written-in comments by some respondents that they had been able to set up systems by which teachers and support staff could share work effectively in their schools. There was a trend across employment status, with supply teachers most negative, part-time teachers intermediate, and full-time teachers most positive. Inspectors and advisers gave higher ratings than other groups, reflecting a wider experience of seeing these roles successfully in action, but other differences related to phase and school status were slight. This factor again received a higher rating from male than female teachers.
The third factor group related for the proposals for support staff to take senior managerial roles – human relations/personnel managers, business managers, facilities managers, and lead behaviour managers. While some of these roles were relatively popular with respondents, all were seen as requiring particular expertise. This factor also had lower loadings for the proposals for behaviour managers and careers advisers, linking it to the fourth factor (and to the first for the proposal on careers advisers), and suggesting that these two roles are seen as more managerial. There was also a loading for the proposal that more managers should be appointed from outside education, linking it to the fifth factor: this is consistent with the specific expertise needed for the four roles, as mentioned above.
On average, respondents tended to be unenthusiastic about these proposals.
This was another group where there was a consistent trend with age and length of service, with older teachers more negative and younger teachers more positive. Members of the Leadership Group and Deputy Heads were more negative towards these proposals than other groups; these roles for support staff could challenge their status. Supply teachers were more hostile than their parttime and full-time colleagues who held fairly similar views, but with the parttimers more hostile. This proposal was again most popular with sixth-form college and secondary staff, once more reflecting the size, complexity and need for specialist assistance in these phases; this also accounted for its greater popularity with male than female teachers. The proposal was highly rated by the small group of staff from academies, but was also popular with staff in grant

43 maintained schools, in CTCs, and, to a lesser extent, those in independent schools.
The fourth group involves proposals that support staff should take responsibility for children – that they should act as behaviour managers, cover supervisors, learning mentors and careers advisers, and cover for teacher absence. The factor also had a number of lower loadings linking it to other factors; for proposals on careers advisors, invigilators, examination officers and timetabling officers, linking it to factor 1 (it will be noted that, among the core proposals on factor 1, these are the activities involving more contact with children). It is also linked to factor 3 through a loading for the lead behaviour managers proposal and to factor 6 through a loading for the proposal that support staff should lead teaching and learning without a teacher.
As indicated in earlier sections, this group of proposals caused respondents much more concern than the previous groups. There was again a consistent negative trend with age, older teachers being more negative than younger ones.
Newly-qualified staff were less hostile than their longer-serving colleagues, though heads and assistant heads were also less hostile. Deputy Heads were the most hostile group; such managerial roles for support staff could challenge their position. There was a linear trend across employment status, with supply teachers most hostile, part-time teachers intermediate and full-time teachers least hostile, reflecting that, as mentioned above, support staff established in a school may take over teaching roles currently filled by supply staff. Teachers in secondary schools and sixth-form colleges were less hostile than those in other types, especially primary and under-5s teachers, reflecting the greater value of ancillary support, for technical and behavioural aspects, in the former two types of institution; again men rated the factor higher than women. Once again inspectors and advisers were relatively favourable. Staff in CTCs, grant maintained and independent schools were also relatively favourable to these proposals, again indicating a willingness to hive off non-academic duties in institutions which place more emphasis on academic achievement.
The fifth factor group was the proposals for introducing outsiders without teaching qualifications
– teaching staff without QTS, proven leaders via a fasttrack process and managers from outside education. As indicated in the sections above, these proposals were unpopular with respondents, and this factor received the lowest mean responses of any. There were marked differences between age groups, with the most negative responses from the 31-40 age group. As indicated in the discussion of the individual proposals, this age group was the one whose career prospects were most at risk from incomers, but older teachers were almost as negative. This is supported by the fact that Deputy
Heads were the most hostile group in the analysis of response in relation to position. Teachers with 15 years’ service were more supportive than their longer-serving colleagues, reflecting that this group included late entrants to the profession who may have s een themselves as ‘outsiders’. Employment status

44 showed only weak effects, all groups being fairly similarly hostile, but supply teachers most so. The proposal was least unpopular among sixth-form staff, reflecting the existing greater movement into and out of education in this phase, but it was also relatively popular among secondary and PRU staff and advisers, and was therefore again less unpopular with men than women. As might be expected, independent school staff rated these proposals highly, as did the small group of academy staff; academy and grant-maintained school staff were also relatively positive.
A sixth factor was dominated by the two teaching roles
– that support staff should assist teaching and learning when a teacher was present, and that they should lead teaching and learning without a teacher being present; as mentioned above, there was also a lower loading for the role of high-level teaching assistant.
These two roles had very divergent scores, with most respondents agreeing with the ‘assisting’ role, and most disagreeing with the ‘lead teaching’ role, so the mean score is intermediate. Despite these differences in scores, the two roles are grouped together on the same factor because teachers who score high on the ‘assisting’ role also score high on the ‘lead teaching’ role, and vice versa. In other words, though ‘lead teaching’ is much less accepted than ‘assisting’, teachers who value assistance from support staff highly are also relatively prepared to accept them leading teaching, whereas those who are dubious about the value of support staff as assistants are even more negative about their ability to lead teaching.
There was trend with age for this group, with younger teachers, especially the
26-30 age-group, most positive, and older teachers least positive. However there was trend with position, staff on higher scales (with the exception of Advanced
Skills Teachers) being more positive than their colleagues on lower scales,
Heads being most positive and Main Scale Teachers least. Again this is consistent with senior staff having the power to arrange the deployment of support staff and teachers to create compatible teams. It is reflected in the weak trend related experience, teachers with 20+ years’ service being more negative than the other groups, who held fairly similar views. Supply teachers were markedly more hostile than their part-time and full-time colleagues, reflecting the greater threat to their prospects posed by support staff taking a teaching role.
This role was relatively popular among special school staff, and to a lesser extent among primary and nursery staff
– these being the phases where support staff already have a substantial role in assisting teaching. This suggests that experience of support staff in action in teaching roles encourages teachers to accept they are capable of this role. Reflecting this primary emphasis, this was the only factor rated higher by women than men. Inspectors and advisers were again in favour. Unlike other factors, this one was rated low by staff in CTCs, grant-maintained schools and academies, indicating a particular hostility to support staff being involved in teaching in the institutions where academic

45 success is stressed most. This hostility contrasts with their relative enthusiasm for most other groups of proposals.
Structural modeling, which could not include the effect of school status, indicated that all the factors were related, with the technical support, responsibility for children and senior managerial role factors the most closely related. Age-related phase was the strongest influence on responses, staff working with older ageranges being more positive, except for the teaching role factor. Male-female differences worked through the effect of phase, and were related to the greater proportion of men working with older-age-groups. Teacher age had a fairly strong negative effect on support for all support staff roles, and employment status a weak effect, with full-time support staff most positive. Thus the structural model, which simultaneously includes relationships between all these variables, confirms the analysis of individual variables above.

46
10) Open-ended comments
Respondents were asked to comment in general, or on specific proposals; examples of comments on specific proposals have been appended to the appropriate proposal above. Turning to the more general comments, many respondents felt government could hardly expect educational achievement to improve if the quality of the staff involved is being diluted: especially if teachers are beginning to feel so undervalued that they are leaving the profession:-

How can the government expect achievement levels to rise by putting unqualified staff in to teach children? The 3 yr degree is for a reason…I have been a teacher for 2 yrs and my partner for 3 yrs. It was for the interaction with pupils that we became teachers, not so we could do hours of paperwork in order that an unqualified member of staff could teach our planning to our pupils. If the government continues with the proposals it will be the final nail in the coffin for both of us and we will be moving into being ICT trainers where we have both been offered jobs for much more money, far fewer hours and a feeling of worth. (Female primary Leadership Group member)

8/11/02 Two very experienced teachers resigned at my school today. The system is in a shambles. Everyone I know intends to get out asap. We’re all tired, fed up & sick of changes. (Female secondary Main Scale, 1620 years’ experience)
Though the following responses do not actually threaten resignation, their indignation clearly cannot indicate high morale:-

I am speechless at reading some of these proposals as detailed here: the idea seems to be that anyone can take the roles described “fast track” or otherwise – the role & status of THE TEACHER is being further undermined.
(Female secondary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)
 The teaching assistants that I have in my classroom are great but I’m the teacher, the person who has had to be at university for three years. The teaching assistant should be there to support the teacher & pupils, reduce the teacher’s workload & possibly take the class, supervised by the qualified teacher. The assistant should not take the role of the teacher as it’s the teacher alone who is qualified. (Female primary Main Scale, 15 years’ experience)
As some respondents pointed out, there is little point in having rigorous training and inspection of teachers if the same rigour is not applied to the support staff who are in fact taking over from them:-

If CSAs are to teach independently they should be subject to the same rigorous monitoring (in-school / O.F.S.T.E.D. etc.) as teaching staff are! (I doubt they will put up with it for long on the money they get
– it’s bad enough

47 on a teach er’s salary!) (Female primary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)
Otherwise teachers are likely to see the use of support staff for teaching as an attempt to cut corners:-

Why does this government think it can take short-cuts to solve the recruitment
& retention crisis? (Female supply primary / secondary Main Scale, 6-10 years’ experience)

I do feel that the lack of teachers needs addressing. However if this is done using TA’s there will be an outcry from all those teachers who trained for 3 / 4 years to get where they are. Some kind of teaching qualification needs to be introduced and a different pay scale. Or the current pay scale needs to be reviewed if less qualified people are to have an equal chance to earn a similar wage. (Female primary Main Scale, 1-
5 years’ experience)

There could be flexibility in the roles of teachers and teacher assistants but unfortunately in the current climate teacher assistants would be imposed upon us as a new, underpaid sub-teacher class. Would they want this? Has anybody asked them? (Male secondary Main Scale, 20+ years’ experience)

I have a great deal of respect for our support staff and the roles they play in the school community, however, I do not feel they are the solution to the government’s teacher shortages. (Female primary Main Scale, 6-10 years’ experience)

Teaching is not handing on a block of knowledge, it is a complex range of skills which require a lot of training / support – new fully qualified teachers are only barely equipped to teach & the idea that this can be done on the cheap undermines the whole profession of teaching. (Female primary part-time
Leadership Group member, 16-
20 years’ experience)

The refusal of government to pay teachers a reasonable wage leading to problems of teacher recruitment has led to this move. This will further fuel the slide into poor discipline and chaos in many schools…. The old adage of buy cheap pay twice is as appropriate in teaching as any other walk of life. (Male primary Main Scale, 20+ years’ experience)
Some respondents pointed out that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy was inappropriate given the diversity of conditions in different phases of education and different geographical regions.

The total differences between Foundation, KS1, KS2 and beyond should be recognised and get separate treatment. These policies are often totally unworkable at some stages. (Male primary Deputy Head, 610 years’ experience)

Primary & secondary different but always dealt with together. No teacher shortage (Devon primary) – what would happen to supply teachers? Huge areas of experience & expertise would be lost! (Female part-time Main Scale,
6-
10 years’ experience)

48
Some respondents stressed the need to take a positive attitude to the proposals in general, in addition to those quoted above who had stressed the value of support staff in specific roles. Not all respondents felt that the traditional route to qualified teacher status was the only, or best route. In some cases, schools had taken ownership of the process of building a mutually supportive team of teachers and support staff, and further development of policy to support the ability of schools and their staff to work autonomously in this way would be productive in its own right and a valuable indicator to teachers that their professionalism is respected.

NUT should be seriously linking with UNISON & other unions to engage in a campaign to improve teachers’ and learning assistants’ pay and conditions.
Female primary special school Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)

NT
A’s in general are not appreciated as it is – some schools discourage them from using staffrooms – under-paid under-appreciated and grossly undertrained for the work they are expected to do at present. Often being expected to give up their lunch times to supervise pupils who are disabled. Sorry folks!
TRAIN – pay - & then ask me again. (Female secondary Main Scale supply,
20+ years’ experience)

Many teachers are leaving the profession not wanting to commit to full time teaching
– upgrading classroom assistants gives them a chance (particularly women who leave to have a family or want to retire early) to work in education and use their experience in schools. (Female primary supply Main Scale, 6-10 years’ experience)

Under equality of opportunity laws people of all backgrounds should be encouraged to become professional in schools. A set time of supervised practice e.g. 1 yr / 1½ yrs can be arranged & this status can be gained. I learned more in my first years of teaching than I ever did on PGCE – where we were taught how to write essays. (Female secondary Advanced Skills
Teacher, 1115 years’ experience)

The Union must not be conservative and Luddite in its views of the future of education. We have to be flexible in the way we provide an education service.
There are very skilled and capable people who can make greatly valued contributions to the work of schools, but they should not replace teachers in a classroom. However, qualified counselors could provide core pastoral care for students, parents and staff. We already use nurses etc. in a holistic approach to personal development. (Male secondary teacheradministrator, 20+ years’ experience)

We run the risk of sounding arrogant and high-handed. The hostile elements of the media will find easy pickings if we (as a profession
– i.e. you the professional organisations) don’t play this situation carefully and make the right points. My views are that I would welcome greater levels of support (the job is a tough one, after all) and with ‘social inclusion’ likely to increase, rather

49 than remove, the problems in schools, we need all the help we can get. (Male secondary Upper Pay Scale Teacher, 20+ years’ experience)

The style of management in this school for several years has enabled staff members who are not teachers to be given significant levels of responsibility….This works very well for us, shares the workload much more appropriately, offers career opportunities for many more people and leaves teachers free to teach and myself much more able to focus on strengthening the quality of teaching and learning in the school…Our school operates in one of the most challenging areas of Worcestershire and, without the staffing structure which recognises the combined expertise of the staff team and facilitates innovative teamwork, we would be unable to function effectively, as the strain on teaching staff would be too great and recruitment / retention of teachers of high enough calibre would be almost impossible. (Female primary
Head, 20+ years’ experience)

It sounds great to me! (Male secondary Assistant Headteacher, 1115 years’ experience)

50
11) Discussion
Critical to the acceptance of the proposals will be the extent to which ‘the principle that qualified teachers must have responsibility for ensuring high standards of teachin g and learning’ (DfES 2002b, p. 5) is realised in practice. As indicated in some of the comments quoted above, some schools have been able to set up systems of working by teacher and support staff which they consider highly successful (see also Revell 2002
). Statements such as ‘Determining what should be delegated, and the nature and extent of supervision should be primarily a matter for the professional judgement of headteachers and qualified teachers rather than for rigid national demarcation’ (DfES 2002b, p.5) suggest realisation that teachers need to feel they have real control over the process, and that productive relationships depend on individual circumstances. The boundaries between the work done by teachers and support staff are a particular issue in view of the issues of legal responsibility which could arise in case of mishap (e.g. de la Motte 2002). Both sides need to be able to question, and if necessary renegotiate, issues where they feel dissatisfied with what is planned, for example when teachers plan work for support staff to deliver; otherwise there is the risk of children and parents feeling provision is inadequate.
It would appear paradoxical if, after more than a decade of increasing control and specification of precisely how teachers are to be trained and how training institutions should operate, the Government should be proposing routes by which people, who have not followed these specified paths into teaching, should be able to circumvent the controls which it has itself set up. While this proposed use of support staff may be a response to the recruitment and retention crises identified in some areas of the country (Smithers & Robinson 2001), the end result could be a return to the status quo ante , in which many people teaching children reached their position without their skills being as closely scrutinised as has recently been deemed necessary for teachers being trained through mainstream channels. If this solution becomes necessary to make up the numbers of a teaching force, however constituted, adequate to maintain staff/student ratios, it is perhaps unfortunate that so much public money has been expended in changing training curricula, providing the appropriate new materials, and inspecting training provision, quite apart from the stress involved to teachers and trainers and the damage caused to the personalities and careers of people who found themselves unable to continue in teaching.
It is therefore essential that the proposals for effective selection and training of support staff are implemented rapidly, and in a way which has the confidence of teachers. Respondents have high regard for many of their assistants, but the variability in quality of assistants is a justified concern. More formal methods of recruitment, such as the Time s Educational Supplement’s initiative to set up an advertisement section for support staff (announced in the December 6 th , 2002 issue) should increase confidence. There also need to be career development paths, as the DfES proposals recommend – practice which has already been

51 implemented by some LEAs (Haughton 2002). Teacher confidence in support staff may be encouraged if the present path, followed by some able support staff, into teacher training, can be developed further. Teachers could then feel that those who wished to take on authority over a class had moved into the appropriate career path and that those who stayed as support staff were willing to accept an assisting role. The position of ex-teachers who have, for whatever reason, moved over to the assistant role, has the potential to be more problematic in terms of relationships. Especially where they are working with relatively newly qualified teachers, the division of responsibility between inexperienced teacher and experienced assistant is potentially problematic and may require careful monitoring by the Leadership Group. The positive comments from some of the experienced senior staff among the respondents suggest this problem is not insoluble, but it is notable that these staff have the authority of long experience themselves. It is less likely that the proposed fast-track
Leadership Group members would be able to summon the same authority, especially given the strong resentment against incomers expressed by many respondents.
A particular concern must be the effect of the proposals on the position of supply and agency staff, and to a lesser extent on the position of part-timers. The survey results show that supply and agency staff, particularly, are concerned about the effect of the proposals on their employment and prospects. As some respondents pointed out, established support staff can be more effective than supply teachers, especially in areas where the quality of supply teachers is variable. Even where this is not the case, it may be easier or cheaper for schools to replace supply or part-time teachers with support staff. Many supply, agency or part-time teachers are ex-full-timers, who have turned to this type of work because they felt unable, or unwilling, to deal with the current demands of full-time teaching. These staff are relatively unlikely to return to full-time teaching, and loss of employment for them, though it may be financially problematic for them as individuals and may deprive children of experienced teachers, is unlikely to affect the future supply of teachers. More problematic may be teachers who have family or other commitments which currently prevent them working full-time, but are working on a part-time or supply basis to maintain their income and involvement with developments in the profession, until such time as they can return to full-time teaching. If the effect of the increased use of support staff was to cut off opportunities for substantial numbers in this category to maintain their link with teaching, there could be seri ous effects on the future supply of ‘returners’.
The critical issue in the eyes of many respondents, as both written-in comments and responses to the closed questions on the proposals show, is the issue of support staff involvement in teaching. As the fac tor analysis shows, teachers’ attitudes to support staff assisting with teaching, and their attitudes to support staff leading teaching, are closely related, and also related to their attitude to
‘high level teaching assistants’. School Standards Minister David Miliband has indicated (2002) that where support staff are in charge of children, they would

52 always be under the supervision of a teacher. Much depends on what this
‘supervision’ entails. In legal practice, crisis points, where the supervision of a senior practitioner will be necessary, are essentially predictable, as the court process unfolds, and the allocation of tasks to senior and ancillary staff can to a large extent be planned. Although medicine is a more reactive profession, much of the normal process of recovery is also predictable, allowing the same sort of planned allocation, as pointed out in the previous survey of attitudes to support staff (Neill 2002), with intervention and diagnosis by doctors at specific points. It is presumably this planned allocation which ministers have in mind. Teachers, however, are well aware that crises, especially in relation to pupil behaviour, can blow up unpredictably, in the same way as crises in medicine. Are ministers visualising schools duplicating the scenes in medical dramas, with teams of senior professionals, summoned by pagers, sprinting down the corridors to solve a crisis which is overwhelming the capabilities of their junior front-line staff?
Effective monitoring of support staff is likely to be a considerably more timeconsuming responsibility for teachers in reality, and it is notable that the staff in the most academically-oriented types of institution – grant-maintained and independent schools, CTCs and academies
– are the most concerned about the effects of support staff being involved in teaching.

53
References
De la Motte,B. (2002) Be careful out there. Times Educational Supplement, 6 th .
December 2002.
Department for Education and Skills (2002a) Time for Standards: Reforming the
School Workforce.
London: Department for Education and Skills.
Department for Education and Skills (2002b) Developing the Role of School
Support Staff: Consultation.
London: Department for Education and Skills.
Haughton,E. (2002) Ride the training express. Times Educational Supplement,
6 th . December 2002.
Miliband,D. (2002) Putting flesh on the bone. Time Educational Supplement , 25 th .
October 2002.
Neill,S.R.St.J. (1998) Bureaucracy and Workload, Teaching and Learning.
Report to the National Union of Teachers. Institute of Education, University of
Warwick.
Neill,S.R.St.J. (2001) Performance Management and Threshold Assessment.
Report to the National Union of Teachers. Teacher Research & Development
Unit, University of Warwick.
Neill,S.R.St.J. (2002) Teaching Assistants. Report to the National Union of
Teachers. Teacher Research & Development Unit, University of Warwick.
Revell, P. (2002) Thanks for your support. TES Friday; 22 nd . November 2002.
Smithers, A. and Robinson, P. (2001). Teachers Leaving . London: NUT.

54
APPENDIX I
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Please tick appropriate box
Before you tell us how much you agree or disagree with the Government we need to know about you. Please complete this section first. If there is no category which exactly fits your situation, please choose the nearest alternative rather than the ‘other’ section.

21-25

26-30

31-40

41-50

50+

Female

Male

Full-time

Part-time

Group

Under 5s

Pupil Referral Units

Inspectors / Advisers

Other

Headteacher

Assistant Headteacher



Main Scale Teacher

Upper Pay Scale Teacher

Supply / Agency

Primary & Middle Deemed Primary
Secondary and Middle Deemed Secondary

Special
LEA Centrally Employed Teacher
Sixth Form College

Deputy Headteacher

Other member of the Leadership

Advanced Skills Teacher

1-5

6-10
Academy

11-15

16-20

LEA-maintained

Voluntary-Controlled
Maintained

City Technology College

.Independent

20+

Voluntary-Aided

Grant-


55
The statements set out below are drawn from Government documents. Please tick one of box under each statement.
The Government wants support staff to have the roles set out below. In each case, do you agree with the Government’s proposal?
1. Provide administrative support to teachers and headteachers.
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree Have mixed views
Strongly Disagree
2. Assist teaching and learning in classes while teachers are present.
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree Have mixed views
Strongly Disagree
3. Lead some teaching and learning in their own right without teachers being present.
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
4. Cover for teacher absence.
Have mixed views
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views

56
The Government has identified a number of practical examples of work that could be undertaken by support st aff. In each case, do you agree with the Government’s proposal? Please tick one box only under each example.
A.
“ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER ANCILLARY ROLES”
5. Health and safety / site managers.
Agree Have mixed views Strongly agree
Disagree
6. Attendance clerks.
Strongly Disagree
Agree Have mixed views Strongly agree
Disagree
7. Timetabling officers.
Strongly Disagree
Agree Have mixed views Strongly agree
Disagree
8. Examination officers.
Strongly Disagree
Strongly agree
Disagree
9. ICT technicians.
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views
Have mixed views

57
B. “ROLES INVOLVING CONTACT WITH PUPILS AND PARENTS, BUT NOT
INVOLVING TEA CHING ACTIVITIES”
10. Invigilators.
Agree Have mixed views Strongly agree
Disagree
11. Behaviour managers.
Strongly Disagree
Strongly agree
Disagree
12. Careers advisers.
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views
13. Learning mentors/advice and guidance.
Strongly agree
Disagree
14. Cover supervisors.
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views

58
C. “ROLES INVOLVING FULLER CONTACT WITH PUPILS AND PARENTS
INVOLVING TEACHING ACTIVITY, SUBJECT TO SUPERVISION BY A
QUALIFIED TEACHER”
15. High level teaching assistants.
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views
16. Sports coaches.
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
17. Music and drama specialists.
Have mixed views
Strongly agree
Disagree
18. Language assistants.
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views

59
C. “SENIOR ROLES OF A MANGERIAL KIND”
19. Business managers/bursars.
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
20. Human Relations/personnel managers.
Have mixed views
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
21. Lead behaviour managers.
Have mixed views
Agree Have mixed views Strongly agree
Disagree
22. Facilities managers.
Strongly agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views

60
The Government has outlined other proposals for staff without qualified teacher status. In each case, do you agree with the Government’s proposal? Please tick one box only under each proposal.
23. More managers from outside education without qualified teacher status should be appointed.
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views
24. Teachers from further education, sixth form colleges and independent schools should be appointed to teach in schools even when they do not have qualified teacher status.
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Have mixed views
25. There should be a fast track mechanism by which proven leaders from other sectors can achieve qualified teacher status and NPQH.
Agree Have mixed views Strongly agree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
If you wish to elaborate on any points you have previously made or add comments of a general nature please use the space below and opposite. If your comments relate to a specific question please indicate the relevant number.

61

62
APPENDIX II
METHODS AND SAMPLE
The prepaid questionnaire was distributed postally to all active members of the
Union; no reminder letter was sent. By the specified return date of 2 nd . December
2002, 31232 responses had been returned; about another 1500 arrived too late for analysis. In addition to descriptive statistics, the program SPSS 8.0 was used to crosstabulate the independent biographical variables (age, employment status, phase, and length of service) with the responses to the proposals, and to produce groups of responses using factor analysis. Factor analysis groups together correlated responses, i.e. those which are answered similarly by the same respondents. An example is given in the text; although respondents were much less positive about the proposal for support staff to lead teaching and learning in their own right than about the proposal for support staff to assist with learning, responses were strongly correlated
– respondents who were relatively positive about one proposal were relatively positive about the other, those who were negative about one were negative about the other. The factors were incorporated into a structural model, using the EQS program; structural modeling gives the overall relationship between a complete set of variables, including causal relationships (for example, that women form a higher proportion of primary than secondary teachers, so that differences between male and female teachers’ responses relate largely to the age of the children they teach). Two causal variables – school financial status and phases which were not age-related
(e.g. special schools and advisers / inspectors) were omitted because they did not meet the requirements of the program; since age and length of service were so closely correlated, only one, age, was included.
Reflecting the teaching population at large, two-thirds of the sample (63.9%) were over 40, with a third (33.7%) over 50. Over 40% had 21+ years’ service; on the other hand 18.4% were recent entrants with 5 years’ experience or less, the remainder being fairly evenly distributed across the intervening categories. Over three-quarters of the sample (76.1%) were female, reflecting the majority of respondents (53.1%) teaching in the primary and under-5s phases. A third of respondents (33.1%) taught in secondary schools, and between 4.3% and 0.9% worked as special school staff, LEA Centrally Employed Teachers, sixth form college staff, Pupil Referral Unit staff, inspectors / advisers and other roles.
Three-quarters worked full-time, with 15.1% working part-time and 10% as supply or agency teachers. Approaching half (46.9%) were on the Main Scale,
28.1% on the Upper Pay Scale and 13.4% in the Leadership Group, and 3.6-
1.3% in other positions (Deputy Head, Assistant Head, Head and Advanced
Skills Teacher). Nearly 80% (78.3%) were teaching in LEA maintained schools and 8.1% in Voluntary Aided schools; from 3.2% to 0.1% worked in other types
(Grant Maintained, Voluntary Controlled, CTC, Independent, Academy).

E m
2 p
63
A
APPENDIX III
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE g e l
C
F
1
C
F
G u o u y
2
3
4
5
T
6
1
1
0 o i
v e y
5
3 0
-
-
4
5
+ t a
0
0 l t t a l e
T n o d m e r i v e y a le M
T a o t a s t l o t a l T e n t s t a
C
F u
T a u o o t u s i r v e y p t t t i i m
/ m a e e l t t a t a l g e n c y

L e
P u C
F
1
1
1
1 n
1
P
C
F o u
1
1 g
C
F t h u
64 h s a i s e r i e p i v e e m c h e y r a o n
F c i r a
5 y d o a r l s
/ r m s m y c i
/
C h d m o o d l l o l e l e i d d g l e
R
E s t
U
A p h c e e c r e t o l n o t r r a
/ l l y a d e v m i s p e e l r o o t t a t a l t y i o n d p d e s t i p v a s v e y
S e a d i r n e s t c p c r a e s a a l e y d h n t i s
S p
H c k
G e a i a l l r l o d e s T u p t y H e a d e e o p a t u d a t l o t a l o f s e r v i c e i
1
1
6
-
-
1 o t i v e y
0
1
2
+ a y l e y
5
0 a e y y e r a s a e e r r s a a s r r o t t a l s s e d T

S c h
C
F
2
2 o u
1
9
1
1 o l
65 s t a t u s l i v u e y m n t a a i r n y o o r l u a
T n
C n t t a r m y a i c n a d o e t d a t l e p m e n y d o t a l t a a i c n o t i n d n a e i e t n d d r o e l d e n t l e d

A
A d s
L m s e in is t a d
66 is t t t e r a e a c a t iv h c in g
C
F h e
C
F s u u
1
1
1
& u
1 in g & u
1
C
F
1
APPENDIX IV
BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSES TO PROPOSALS p p o r t t o T s & h e a d
V i i s v e y n g a g r
7 A i x g r e e d e
S
T t r o o t n a l g o t t a l T le a r n ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly in g a
g r
T g e p r e r e e e s e s n t
S t i i s v e y n g a g r i t x g o r r e e o t d e n a l g o t t a l T le a r n ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly in g a g w r it g e h r e o e u i s v e y n g a g r D i
M
A i x g r e e d e g S
T t r o o t n a l
T o t t a l ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly a g r g e r e e e t e
T

C o v
H e a lt h
67 e r
&
A t f o r
1
C
F s t a f
C
F
2
1 e n t e u e u d t a y c h e r a b s e n c e
D i
M i s i v e y n g a x e g r d
A
S
T g t o r r e o t a t e n l g o t a l T
/ s it e ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly m a a g n r a g e e g r e a i s v e y n g a g r D i
M
A i x g r e e d e g S
T t r o o t n a l o t t a l T n c e c le ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly r k a s g r g e r e e r s e e e
1
C
F
1
1 u
V i v e y n g i s i a x e g r d
6 A
S
T g t o r r e o t a t e n l g
T o t a l ly e v e i d e i s w a s ly a g r g e r e e e

68
T
E im x a e t a
C
F b u m in
C
F a u
IC T t e g o f f ic e r s
V
2 T i i s i v e y n g a x e g r d g t r r e o e n g o t a t l o t a l T t io n o f f ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly ic a e r g s r g e r e c i s v e y n g a g r D i
M
A i x g r e e d e g S
T t r o o t n a l o t t a l T h n ic ia ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly n s a g r g e r e e e
1
C
F
1
1 u
V i v e y n g i s i a x e g r d
2 A
S
T g t o r r e o t a t e n l g
T o t a l ly e v e i d e i s w a s ly a g r g e r e e e e e

B
69 e h
C
In v ig u C
F
2
1 a v io t o r s
4 A
S
T g t o r r e o t a t e n l g u
V
T r i i s i v e y n g a x e g r d o m t a a l n a a r
C
F e u e r s ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly a g r g e r e g e r s i s v e y n g a g r D i
M
A i x g r e e d e g S
T t r o o t n a l o t t a l T a d v is ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly e r a s g r g e r e e e
C
F u
V
7 T
T i v e y n g i s i a x e g r d g t r r e o e n g o t a t l o t a l ly e v e i d e i s w a s ly a g r g e r e e e e e

L e a r n in
H ig g h
70 m
C le e o v n t o
C
F
1 v e l t r s u e r
C
F s u e a
a d v ic e & g u id
V i i s i v e y n g a x e g r d
8 A
S
T g t o r r e o t a t e n l g o t a l T u p e r v ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly is o a r g s r g e r e a e n e c i s v e y n g a g r D i
M
A i x g r e e d e g S
T t r o o t n a l o t t a l T h in g a ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly s s a g is r t g e a e n r t e s e
C
F u
V
6 T
T i v e y n g i s i a x e g r d g t r r e o e n g o t a t l o t a l ly e v e i d e i s w a s ly a g r g e r e e e c e

M
71 u s
L a
S ic n p
1
& d
C
F
1 g o r t s u C
F
2 u
2 r a u
2 a g c o a c h e s
V i i s i v e y n g a x e g r d
7 A
S
T g t o r r e o t a t e n l g o t a l T m a s p ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly e c a ia g r e lis t g s r e e i s v e y n g a g r D i
M
A i x g r e e d e g S
T t r o o t n a l o t t a l T a s s is ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly t a a n t g s r g e r e e e
1
C
F
2 u
V i v e y n g i s i a x e g r d
3 A
S
T g t o r r e o t a t e n l g
T o t a l ly e v e i d e i s w a s ly a g r g e r e e e e e

H u m a
72 n
L r e e
B a u la d t s io b in e
C
F s u n s
C
F
/ u e h a s m a n a g e r s
V
2 T i i s i v e y n g a x e g r d g t r r e o e n g o t a t l o t a l T p e r s o n ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly n a e g l r m g e e a r n v i s v e y n g a g r D i
M
A i x g r e e d e g S
T t r o o t n a l o t t a l T io u r m ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly a n a a g g r e e r g s r e e a e
C
F
1 u
V
7 T
T i v e y n g i s i a x e g r d g t r r e o e n g o t a t l o t a l ly e v e i d e i s w a s ly a g r g e r e e e g e e e r s

M o r e
A m p p a o
73 n
F a in t a g c e
F E
C
F ie u r s
C
F
1
1 e f r u t s m a n a g e r s
V
7 T i i s i v e y n g a x e g r d g t r r e o e n g o t a t l o t a l T o m o u t ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly s id a e g r e g e d r e u c .
i s v e y n g a g r D i
M
A i x g r e e d e g S
T t r o o t n a l o t t a l T s t a f f w ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly it a h g o r u e t g r e e c
Q e e a e
T t
S
1
C
F
1 u i v e y n g
D i
M s i a x e g r d
A
S
T g t o r r e o t a t e n l g
T o t a l ly e v e i d e i s w a s ly a g r g e r e e e io n

F a s t t r a c k f o r p r o v e u
1
C
F
74 n le a d e
D i
M i s i v e y n g a x e g r d
A
S
T g t o r r e o t a t e n l g
T o t a l r s f r o m o e u e ly e d e v i e i s w a s ly a g r g e r e t s id e

A
A d s m s inis is t t t e r a a t c ive s hing
75
APPENDIX V
RESPONSES BROKEN DOWN BY AGE OF RESPONDENTS up p
& le o r t t o T s & he a w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin r ning -
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g
T e e e e e e p r e a s d e s nt
L e a d t e a c hing & w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin a r ning
A
A
A
A
A
A w g g g g g g it e e e e e e ho w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g e e e e e e ut T le

C
He a o lt ve h r
&
A t f o r t e a
76 c he r a b s e nc e s t a e f e nd t y a nc w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin s it e m
A
A
A
A
A
A a g g g g g g na e e e e e e g e e w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin c le r k
A
A
A
A
A
A s w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g g g g g g g e e e e e e e e e e e e
/ r s

77
T
E im xa
I e t m
C a ina
T b t t e c io o f f ic e r w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w hnic it hin ia ns s w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin n o f f ic e
A
A
A
A
A
A r s
A
A
A
A
A
A w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g e e e e e e g g g g g g e e e e e e g g g g g g e e e e e e

B e
I ha
C a vio r nvig
78 ila e e ur r s t o r s w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g m w a it hin na g e
A r g s
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g a w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin d vis e r s w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

L e a r ning
Hig h m
C le e nt o ve o ve l t r r s e s a
-
79 a up d vic e & w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin e r vis o r
A
A
A
A
A
A s g uid g g g g g g e e e e e e c w w it it hin hin
A
A g g e e w it hin w it hin unt w it hin it hin w hing a s s
A
A
A
A is g g g g t e e e e a nt w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g e e e e e e a s nc e

M
S p o r t s
80 c o a c he s us
L ic a
& ng d r ua a g e m a w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin s p e c
A
A
A
A
A
A ia g g g g g g lis e e e e e e t s a w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin s s is t a
A
A
A
A
A
A nt g g g g g g s e e e e e e w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g e e e e e e

Hum a n
L r
B e e la a us d t ine io b ns e s s
/
81 m p e a na g e r s r w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin s o nne
A
A
A
A
A
A l g g g g g g m e e e e e e a na ha vio ur w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin m a na
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g g e e e e e e e r s w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g e e e e e e g e r s

M o r e
A p
82 m m p a o
F na int a g
F c ilit e
E r s e ie t f r c s o
.
s m a na g e r s w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin o ut s id
A
A
A
A
A
A e g g g g g g e e e e e e e d uc a w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin f f w it
A
A
A
A
A
A ho g g g g g g ut e e e e e e
Q w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin
A
A
A
A
A
A g g g g g g e e e e e e a
T t
S t io n

F a s t t r a c k f o r p r o ve n
83 le a d e r s w w it it hin hin w it hin w it hin unt w it hin w it hin f r
A
A
A
A
A
A o g g g g g g m e e e e e e o ut s id e

84
APPENDIX VI
RESPONSES BROKEN DOWN BY LENGTH OF SERVICE
A
A d m i n i s s s i s t r t t e a a t i v e s u p p o r t t o o e d y d i s g r l
1 3 L e u n t
T a r s s
& h e a d
1 5
% s
w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
1 4
% w t h i n L u 5 y e e a r n g t h o n g t h o s
%
1 3
%
w u
w t h
0 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o u n e a r s s f f f f
s
s
s
s
1 3
%
%
w t h i n L u n t
w t h i n L e e n g t h o n g t h o f f
s
s c h i n g & a r n i n g o e d y d i s g r l
L e u n t a r
T s
p r e s e
1 1 s
%
w t h i n L e r v n t e a r e s
1 4
% n g t h o
w u
w t h
5 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o
1 3
% u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o
1 3
%
% u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t
w t h i n L e e n n g g t h t h
o
o n t f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s
L e a d t e a c h i n g & a r n i n g w t h o u t T o e d y d i s g r l o s e u n t a r s f w t h i n L e r v n t e a r e s
%
% n g t h o
w u
w t h
5 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o f f f
%
%
% u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t e n g t h o
w t h i n L e n g t h o f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e

H
85
C e o a v e r f o r t e a c h e
% r a b s e n c o e d y d i s g r l e u n t o s a r s f w t h i n L e r v n t e a r e s n e g t h o
%
w u
w t h
5 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
% u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t e n g t h o
w t h i n L e n g t h o l &
A
s a f e t y / s i t e m o e d y d i s g r l
L e u n t a a r n s a
1 6 . 8
1
1
1
8
8
9
. 5
. 5
. 3 g e r s
% s
w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
% w u t h
5 i n
y
L e e a r n n s g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
%
w u
w t h
0 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o u n e a r s
w t h i n L e n g t h o
1 8 . 6 % u n t
w t h i n L e n g t h o t t e n d a n c e c r k s o e d y d i s g r l e u n t o s a r s f w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
% w t h i n L e
%
% n g t h o n g t h o u
w
5 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o
%
% u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t
w t h i n L e e n n g g t h t h
o
o f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e

86
T
E i m e t a b l n g o
1 o e d y d i s g r l e u n t
1 o s a r s f w t h i n L e r v n t e a r e s
% f f i c e r s
% n g t h o
w u
w t h
5 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
% u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t e n g t h o
w t h i n L e n g t h o x a m i n a t i o n o
% w u f f
5 i c t h i
y e n e r s o e d y d i s g r l
1 e u n t o s a r s f
w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
L e a r n n s g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
%
w u
w t h
0 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o u n e a r s
w t h i n L e n g t h o
% u n t
w t h i n L e n g t h o
I C T t e c h n i c
% w u i a
5 n s o e d y d i s g r l o s e u n t a r s f
w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s t h i n
y
L e e a r n n s g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
%
w u
w t h
0 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o u n e a r s
w t h i n L e n g t h o
% u n t
w t h i n L e n g t h o f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v v i c i c v v v i c i c i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

87
B
I n v i g i l t o r s
1
1 o e d y d i s g r l
L e u n t
6
8
. 3
. 0 s
w t h i n L e r v n t e a r e s
% a r s
% n g t h o
w u
w t h
5 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o
1
1
8
9
. 4
. 5
%
% u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t e n g t h o
1 7 . 8 % w t h i n L e n g t h o e h a v i o u r m a
% n a
w u t h
5 g e i n
y e r s o e d y d i s g r l
1 e u n t o s a r s f
w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
L e a r n n s g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
%
w u
w t h
0 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o u n e a r s
w t h i n L e n g t h o
% u n t
w t h i n L e n g t h o
C a r e e r s a d v i s e r s o e d y d i s g r l e u n t o s a r s f w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
% w t h i n L e
%
% n g t h o n g t h o u
w
5 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o
%
% u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t
w t h i n L e e n n g g t h t h
o
o f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e

L e a
88 r n i n g m e
H n t o r s a d v i c e & g u i d a n c
1
1 o e d y d i s g r l
L e u n t
7
9
. 0
. 8 s
w t h i n L e r v n t e a r e s
% a r s
% n g t h o
w u
w t h
5 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o f f f e
s
s
s
%
%
% u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t e n g t h o
w t h i n L e n g t h o f f f
s
s
s
C i g h l o v e r s u p e
% r v
w u i s t h
5 o i
y r n s o e d y d i s g r l o s e u n t a r s f
w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
L e e a r n n s g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
%
w u
w t h
0 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o u n e a r s
w t h i n L e n g t h o
% u n t
w t h i n L e n g t h o v e a c h i n g a
% s s i s
w t h i n L t a o e d y d i s g r l e u n t o s a r s f w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s e n n n t s g g t h t h
o
o
%
% u
w
5 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o
%
% u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t
w t h i n L e e n n g g t h t h
o
o f f f f f f f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e

M
89
S p o r t s c o a c h e s
1
1 o e d y d i s g r l
L e u n t
8
9
. 4
. 3 s
w t h i n L e r v n t e a r e s
% a r s
% n g t h o
w u
w t h
5 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o
1 9 . 4 %
% u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t e n g t h o
% w t h i n L e n g t h o u s
L i c a
& d r a m a o e d y d i s g r l o s e u n t a r s f
w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
%
s
w u p e t h
5 c i i a n
y l s
L e e a r t s n n s g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
%
w u
w t h
0 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o u n e a r s
w t h i n L e n g t h o
% u n t
w t h i n L e n g t h o n g u a g e a
% s s
w u i s
5 t a t h i
y n t s o e d y d i s g r l o s e u n t a r s f
w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s n L e e a r n n s g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
%
w u
w t h
0 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o u n e a r s
w t h i n L e n g t h o
% u n t
w t h i n L e n g t h o f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v v i c i c v v v i c i c i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

H u m a
90 n r
L e
B e a u s i n e s s m
1 o e d y d i s g r l e u n t o s a r s f w t h i n L e r v n t e a r e s
% a n a g e r s
% n g t h o
w u
w t h
5 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
% u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t e n g t h o
w t h i n L e n g t h o f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s t i o n s / p e r s o n n e a n a g e o e d y d i s g r l
1 e u n t
1 o s a r s f
w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
% w t h i n L u 5 y e e a r n g t h o n g t h o s r f f s
s
s
% f s
%
%
w u
w t h
0 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o u n e a r s
w t h i n L e n g t h o f f
s
s
% u n t
w t h i n L e n g t h o f s d b e h a v i o u r
%
m a n a g e o e d y d i s g r l e u n t o s a r s f w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
w t h i n L e r n n s g g t h t h
o
o
%
% u
w
5 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o
%
% u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t
w t h i n L e e n n g g t h t h
o
o f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

M
91 o
F a c i l t i e s m a o e d y d i s g r l e u n t o s a r s f w t h i n L e r v n t e a r e s
% n a g e r s
% n g t h o
w u
w t h
5 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o
%
%
% u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t e n g t h o
w t h i n L e n g t h o f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s e e e e e e r e
A
m a p p o n a g e i n t F r
E s f r o m o e d y d i s g r l o s e u n t a r s f
w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
%
o u t s
w u t h
5 i i d e n
y
L e
e e a r d n n s u g g c a t h t h t i
o
o o f f n
s
s e e
% f s e
%
%
w u
w t h
0 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o u n e a r s
w t h i n L e n g t h o f f
s
s e e
% u n t
w t h i n L e n g t h o f s e
e t c . s t a o e d y d i s g r l e u n t o s a r s f w t h i n L e r u n t e a r e s
% f f w t h o
w t h i n L u t Q e n n g g
T t h t h
S
o
o
%
% u
w
5 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o
%
% u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t
w t h i n L e e n n g g t h t h
o
o f f f f f f
s
s
s
s
s
s e e e e e e r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c r r r r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

F a s t t r a c k f o
92 r p r o v e n l a d e r s f r o o e d y d i s g r l e u n t o s a r s f w t h i n L e r v n t e a r e s
% m n g
o t h u t s
o f f i d
s
s e e e r r
%
w u
w t h
5 y t h i i n e n
L
L e a r s e n n g g t h t h
o
o f s e r
%
%
% u
w
0 y t h i e n a
L r s e n g t h o u n e a r s
w t h i n L u n t e n g t h o
w t h i n L e n g t h o f f f
s
s
s e e e r r r v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c v i c e e e e e e

m
Lead t eac h
C i t r at
A s s t t eac h o r f o
93
APPENDIX VII
RESPONSES BROKEN DOWN BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS s u p p or t
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u t o t s
T
E
& m h p ead c l y s oy m en
% s t at n u h s e
E m p l oy m en
% s t at
% s t at u n u h s t h s e
E
E m m p p l l oy m oy m en en g & l ear n u g
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t at
8% t u at u n t s
% s t at h s
% s t at
% s t at u n u h s t h s
- e e
T
E
E
E
E p m m m m r es en p p p p c l l l l y oy m oy m oy m oy m t en en en en h ou t T g & l ear n
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u n t s
% s t at u h s g e
% s t at u h s e
% s t at n u t h s
E m
E m
E m
E m p p p p c y l oy m l l l oy m oy m oy m en en en en r t e a c h e r a b s e n c e s t s t a
% s t p t l o t u h s y i
/ n w a t n i t u h s i e n i e n % s t w a t i t u h s t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
E
E
E
E n m c p l y o y m m m m p p p l l l o o o y m y m y m e e e e t t t t t t t t t t t t n n n n t t t t

94
H e a l t h & s a f e t y / s i t e m a n a g e r s
A t t e n d a s t s t a p t l o t u h s y i
/ n n e
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
% s t w a t i t u h s i e n t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n n c e c l e r k
E
E
E
E s n m c p l y o y m m m m p p p l l l o o o y m y m y m e e e e n n n n s t s t a
% s t p t l o t u h s y i
/ n w a t n i t u h s i e n e i n % s t w a t i t u h s t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
E
E
E
E n m c p l y o y m m m m et ab l g of f i er s
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u n t s
% s t at u h s e
E
E m m
% s t at u h s e
E m
% s t at n u t h s
E m p p p p p p p c y l oy m l l l l l l o o o y m y m y m oy m oy m oy m e e e e n n n n en en en en t t t t
E x at of
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u f i t s er s
E m
% s t at n u h s e
E m
% s t at
% s t at u u h s n t h s e
E
E m m p p p p c y l oy m l l l oy m oy m oy m en en en en t t t t t t t t t t t t

B
95
T t e c h n i c i a n s s t s t a p t l o t u h s y i
/ n n e
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
% s t w a t i t u h s i e n t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
E
E
E
E n m c p l y o y m m m m at or s
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u t s
% s t at n u h s
% s t at
% s t at u s n u h t h s e e o u r m a n a g
E m
E m
E m
E m e r s p p p p p p p c y l oy m l l l l l l o o o y m y m y m oy m oy m oy m e e e e n n n n en en en en t t t t e h a s t s t a p t l o t u h s y i
/ n n e
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
% s t w a t i t u h s i e n t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
Car eer s ad i er s
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u t s
% s t at n u h s e
% s t at
% s t at u s n u h t h s e
E
E
E
E n m c p l y o y m m m m
E m
E m
E m
E m p p p p p p p c y l oy m l l l l l l o o o y m y m y m oy m oy m oy m e e e e n n n n en en en en t t t t t t t t t t t t

L e a r n i n g m
H i g h l e
96 e n l t o
S p r s - a d c e & g u i d a n c e s t s t a p t l o t u h s y i
/ n n e
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
% s t w a t i t u h s i e n t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
E
E
E
E n m c p l y o y m m m m p p p l l l o o o y m y m y m s u p i or s
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u t s
E m
% s t at n u h s e
E m
% s t at
% s t at u u h s n t h s e
E
E m m t e a c h i n g a s s i s t p p p p a c y l oy m l l l n oy m oy m oy m t s e e e e n n n n en en en en t t t t s t s t a p t l o t u h s y i
/ n n e
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
% s t w a t i t u h s i e n t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n or t s c oac h
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u es t s
% s t at n u h s e
% s t at
% s t at u s n u h t h s e
E
E
E
E n m c p l y o y m m m m
E m
E m
E m
E m p p p p p p p c y l oy m l l l l l l o o o y m y m y m oy m oy m oy m e e e e n n n n en en en en t t t t t t t t t t t t

H u m
97 a n s i
L a n
& d r am a s p
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u n t s
% s t at u h s
% s t at u s n h t e e
% s t at u h s g u a g e a s s i s t a i t
E m
E m
E m
E m n t s s p p p p r e c y l oy m en l l l oy m en oy m en oy m en
B u l a t s t s t a
% s t p t l o t u h s y i
/ n w a t n i t u h s i e n i e n % s t w a t i t u h s t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
E
E
E
E n m c p l y o y m m m m s i es s m an
% s t at ag er s
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t at
3% t u at u n t s u h s e
E
E m m
% s t at
% s t at u u h s n t h s e
E
E m m p p p p p p p c y l oy m l l l l l l o o o y m y m y m oy m oy m oy m e e e e n n n n en en en en t t t t i o n s / p e r s o n n e l m a n a g e r s n m c p l y o y m e t t t t n s t s t a
% s t p t l o t u h s y i
/ n w a t n i t u h s i e n i e n % s t w a t i t u h s t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
E
E
E
E m m m p p p l l l o o o y m y m y m e e e n n n t t t t t t t t

A
98 p
Lead
F a b c eh r m
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u n t s
% s t at u an h s ag e er s
E
E m m p p
% s t at u n h s t e
E m p
% s t at u h s
E m p i l i t i e s m a n a g e r s t t t t m an p o i n ag t F s t s t a
% s t p t l o t u h s y i
/ n w a t n i t u h s i e n i e n % s t w a t i t u h s t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
E
E
E
E n m c p l y o y m m m m p p p l l l o o o y m y m y m er s f r om ou t s i
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t at
8% t u at u n t s
% s t at u h s e e ed
E
E m m u p p c c l l at y oy m oy m
% s t at
% s t at u u h s n t h s e
E
E m m p p l l oy m oy m e e e e n n n n en en en en t t t t
E e t c .
s t a f f w i t h o u t Q s t s t a
% s t p t l o t u h s y i
/ n w a t n i t u h s i e n i e n % s t w a t i t u h s t
% s t w a t i t u h s i n
E
E
E
E n m c p l y o y m m m m c y l oy m en l l l oy m en oy m en oy m en p p p l l l o o o y m y m y m e e e e n n n n t t t t t t t t

F as t t r ac k f or p
99 l ead
S t r on i ag r ee
S u l s t s at t u at u n t s
% s t at u er s h s e f r om
E
E m m p p
% s t at u n h s t e
E m p
% s t at u h s
E m p ou t s i e c y l oy m en t l l l oy m oy m oy m en en en t t t

m n s r s s t
100
APPENDIX VIII
RESPONSES BROKEN DOWN BY PHASE t v s
St o d v e t t s & h
5
1 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
1 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
1 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
1 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
1 .
% w t i n Ph
1 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
1 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
.
.
% w t i n Ph
2 .
% w t i n Ph
1 .
% w t i n Ph h n & l
St o d v e n n T
5
2 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d r
1 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
3 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
4 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
1 .
% w t i n Ph
1 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
2 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
.
.
% w t i n Ph
2 .
% w t i n Ph
2 .
% w t i n Ph d T d T

d t
101 h n & l
St o d v e n n i t
5
9 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
1 t
4 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
6 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
T
1
9 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
0 .
% w t i n Ph
1
1
1
8 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
1 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
0 .
% w t i n Ph
6 .
% w t i n Ph
1 9 .
% w t i n Ph f o t
M x d v e
1 a e
5
2 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
1 9 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
0 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m C o
1 6 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
8 .
% w t i n Ph
1 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
5 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
7 .
% w t i n Ph
1 8 .
% w t i n Ph
2 .
% w t i n Ph d T d T

102 h & s e / s t m
St o d v e
5
1 s
8 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
9 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
7 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
7 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
8 .
% w t i n Ph
7 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
9 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
8 .
% w t i n Ph
2 .
% w t i n Ph
8 .
% w t i n Ph e c
St o d v e
5
3 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
4 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
2 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
2 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
3 .
% w t i n Ph
2 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
4 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
2 .
% w t i n Ph
6 .
% w t i n Ph
3 .
% w t i n Ph d T d T

103
T m
1
1
1
1
1 l n f f i c
St o d v e
5 s
5 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
5 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
8 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
2 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
9 .
% w t i n Ph
7 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
7 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
6 .
% w t i n Ph
8 .
% w t i n Ph 1
1 6 .
% w t i n Ph m n t o f f i c
St o d v e
5
1
1 s
8 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
7 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
1
4 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
0 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
0 .
% w t i n Ph
1
1
1
0 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
1 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
9 .
% w t i n Ph
1 .
% w t i n Ph
7 .
% w t i n Ph d T d T

104
I CT t
St o d v e n c i a s
5
4 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
4 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
3 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
4 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
3 .
% w t i n Ph
4 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
5 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
4 .
% w t i n Ph
7 .
% w t i n Ph
1
1
4 .
% w t i n Ph
I n i g l
St o d v e s
5
9 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
9 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
4 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
1 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
8 .
% w t i n Ph
0 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
9 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
6 .
% w t i n Ph
3 .
% w t i n Ph
7 .
% w t i n Ph d T d T

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
105 v o m
St o d v e s
5
1 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
1 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
3 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
8 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
4 .
% w t i n Ph
4 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
5 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
3 .
% w t i n Ph
3 .
% w t i n Ph
2 .
% w t i n Ph e s a v s
St o d v e s
5
9 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
8 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
0 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
1 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
0 .
% w t i n Ph
4 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
1 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
5 .
% w t i n Ph
0 .
% w t i n Ph
5 .
% w t i n Ph d T d T

n n m
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
106 s a v c
St o d v e e &
5 g d
6 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
4 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
8 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
2 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
1 .
% w t i n Ph
8 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
3 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
8 .
% w t i n Ph
1 .
% w t i n Ph
2 .
% w t i n Ph s
St o d v e v s s
5
3 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
3 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
5 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
3 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
9 .
% w t i n Ph
2 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
8 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
1 .
% w t i n Ph
5 .
% w t i n Ph
0 .
% w t i n Ph e d T d T

H g l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
107 l t h n a
St o d v e s
5 s
0 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
0 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
3 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
8 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
7 .
% w t i n Ph
8 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
3 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
3 .
% w t i n Ph
8 .
% w t i n Ph
1 .
% w t i n Ph s c
St o d v e
5
7 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
8 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
9 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
0 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
8 .
% w t i n Ph
8 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
9 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
9 .
% w t i n Ph
9 .
% w t i n Ph
8 .
% w t i n Ph d T d T

108 s c & d
St o d v e
1 a s i a i s s
5
2 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
1 2 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
4 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
1
6 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
3 .
% w t i n Ph
1
1
5 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
5 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
3 .
% w t i n Ph
5 .
% w t i n Ph
1
1
1
1
1
3 .
% w t i n Ph e a
St o d v e s s
5
9 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
8 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
9 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
0 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
7 .
% w t i n Ph
0 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
0 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
7 .
% w t i n Ph
2 .
% w t i n Ph
9 .
% w t i n Ph d T d T

n r
109 s n s m
St o d v e
1 s
5
9 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
1 8 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
2 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
1 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
5 .
% w t i n Ph
1
1
9 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
9 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
6 .
% w t i n Ph
8 .
% w t i n Ph
6 .
% w t i n Ph t o
1 s / p
St o d v e l m
5
2 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
1
1
2 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
9 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
1
6 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
9 .
% w t i n Ph
1
1
1
1
1
2 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
6 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
0 .
% w t i n Ph
4 .
% w t i n Ph
1 .
% w t i n Ph s d T d T

110 d b
1
1
1 v o
St o d v e m s
5
9 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
8 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
8 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
7 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
1 .
% w t i n Ph
7 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
6 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
9 .
% w t i n Ph
1 .
% w t i n Ph
1 9 .
% w t i n Ph i l t e m
M x d v e
1 s
5
7 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
1 7 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
2 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m C o
1
0 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
5 .
% w t i n Ph
1
1
6 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
9 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
4 .
% w t i n Ph
1
1
0 .
% w t i n Ph
5 .
% w t i n Ph d T d T

111 e m s f r o o
St o d v e s d e
5
3 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
9 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
0 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
9 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
7 .
% w t i n Ph
1 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
9 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
3 .
% w t i n Ph
8 .
% w t i n Ph t n
6 .
% w t i n Ph o n F e c .
s a f i t
M x d v e
5 t Q
3 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d
8 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
1
6 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m C o
2 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
4 .
% w t i n Ph
1 9 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
2 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
2 .
% w t i n Ph
5 .
% w t i n Ph
3 .
% w t i n Ph d T d T

t r
112 k f r p
1 n l
St o d v e s f r m
5
0 .
% w t i n Ph
Pr i m r y / m d o
1
1
8 .
% w t i n Ph y / m d
9 .
% w t i n Ph
VI t F r m Co
1
1
4 .
% w t i n Ph i a s
3 .
% w t i n Ph
1
1
1
1
6 .
% w t i n Ph
L c e
5 .
% w t i n Ph
I n / a v s
8 .
% w t i n Ph
0 .
% w t i n Ph
1 4 .
% w t i n Ph s e d T

113
APPENDIX IX
FACTOR GROUPS tor gr oup
R pon s upp or t s
.7 81 ttenda nc
.7 23
H m s e c af l ety s
/ s
.6 57 f er s
.5 94
.5 33 i l s f er
.4 38 eer s
M s us pec
&
a dv ts er a s s
.8 18 por ts c oac
.8 05 i s ev ta nts hes s ta nts an r s el ons
m
/ s
.4 40 s m s
.4 05 m
Le ad b eha v m s s
.3 07 ov ab s i an age r s er s er f enc up er v or e
tea c or s her
Le ar
.5 18 ni e s
A w
. s
a dv taf f l as t tr ac s f r or om
p r or e m ou ts s ov
f r en om e
l ng A
s
T s t tea c es en t
Le ad teac w
l ng tr ac eth od : P nc ar i ax w er N m s .

114
APPENDIX X
FACTOR GROUP MEANS
R r o c d s a f u c a a i n g y i r i l r o r
.
8
N
.
3
N
.
2
N
.
6
N
.
8 a n
N
.
6 e a
R e t r o h c i n t y s h a f d a e r s t o r o a r f s a e y a e y e a r s r s a r r a s e s s
R f r v i c e i t y o y y m
/ e a n g t e m m e e s n t c a y t u s

115
R I r e u c i i g f o r p p h i n g
3 .
o a f t c s e
7 0 4 n e r 5
1 5 8 5
3 .
8 6 P r i
1 4 7 7 0
3 .
6 7 3 e a n o r n y d s
/ a r m i y / d d l m i d d l
1 0 2 9 4
3 .
4 6 V I t a F
3 .
5
8 N
4 5 p c
1 3 0 8 i a n o a r l
3 .
5 9 R
5 N
3 .
7 9 E
2 N a c e m s n c
C h a o l o y l o e l e g e m p t r / a d v l s e r y
3 .
2 2 7 s a c
7 N
3 .
4 7 3 a n
2 N
3 .
4 4 T t a n
3 0 4 7 1 e d T