Report - Teacher Recruitment and Retention - 25 August 2020

Post-16 Education Teacher

Recruitment and

Retention

Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Presented to the States on 25th August 2020 S.R.3/2020

Contents

1. Chair's Foreword ............................................................................................................. 5
2. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 6
3. Key Findings and Recommendations .............................................................................. 9

1. Key Findings ............................................................................................................. 9
2. Recommendations .................................................................................................. 13

4. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 16

1. Context of the Review ............................................................................................ 16
2. Work undertaken by the Panel ............................................................................... 17

5. Recruitment and Retention Data ................................................................................... 19

1. Recruitment and Retention over the past 5 years .................................................. 19
2. Staff retired over the past five years ....................................................................... 19
3. Staff that have left the profession over the past five years ..................................... 19
4. Number of staff that have engaged in Exit Interviews ............................................ 21
5. Overall qualified teacher headcount over the past five years ................................. 23
6. Size of field of recruitment over the past five years ................................................ 24
7. Staff recruited and retained from recruitment initiatives ......................................... 25

6. Analysis of focus groups ................................................................................................ 27

1. Introduction to focus groups ................................................................................... 27
2. Make-up and Demographics of the focus groups ................................................... 27
3. Detailed Results of focus groups and analysis of evidence received ..................... 30
4. Recruitment ............................................................................................................ 30

1. Successes for recruitment ............................................................................... 30
2. Key Factors and Challenges for recruitment ................................................... 33
3. Lack of incentive .............................................................................................. 34
4. Difficult and confusing process ........................................................................ 36
5. Lack of contracts ............................................................................................. 37
6. Lack of opportunities, including part time/job shares ...................................... 38
7. Non-transferable qualifications ........................................................................ 39
8. Mixed opinion of the relocation package ......................................................... 39
9. Preference to recruit off-island ........................................................................ 40
10. Experiences of recruitment from focus groups ................................................ 40

5. Retention ................................................................................................................ 42

1. Motivations and successes for retention ......................................................... 42
2. Key factors and challenges for retention ......................................................... 44

3. Retention Challenges – undervalued as a professional .................................. 44
4. Retention Challenges – Extortionate' Scrutiny ............................................... 46
5. Retention Challenges – Extreme Expectations ............................................... 48
6. Retention Challenges – Workload ................................................................... 50
7. Retention Challenges – Lack of Support ......................................................... 53
8. Retention Challenges – Lack of opportunities ................................................. 56
9. Retention Challenges – Behaviour .................................................................. 58
10. Retention Challenges – Funding ..................................................................... 61

6. Impact on students ................................................................................................. 63

7. Main improvements needed ................................................................................... 64
8. Conclusions and recommendations from the focus groups .................................... 66

7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 67

8. Appendix One ................................................................................................................ 68

1. Panel Membership .................................................................................................. 68
2. Terms of Reference ................................................................................................ 69
3. Public Hearings ...................................................................................................... 69
4. Evidence Considered ............................................................................................. 69

9. Appendix Two: 4insight Report.......................................................................................70

1. Chair's Foreword

This  report  is  the  culmination  of  work  that  started  in September 2019 and intended to be reported in March 2020.  The  effect  of  Covid-19  delayed  its  finalisation.  I would  like  to  thank  all  those  who  contributed  with submissions,  and  those  who  engaged  with  the  focus groups in particular.

The Panel gathered evidence from a range of sources to make key findings and recommendations that are intended to make a significant contribution to the ongoing debate around  recruitment  and  retention  of  staff.  This  in  turn reflects the ongoing challenges for education in general.

I hope you will read the report with interest and recommendations will be taken on board by all concerned.

Deputy Rob Ward

Chair,

Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

2. Executive Summary

The Children, Education and Home Affairs Panel (hereafter the Panel') first looked at the subject of teacher recruitment and retention during a quarterly public hearing with the Minister for Education on 14th June 2019. At the time, the Minister advised the Panel that 154 teachers (83 primary and 71 secondary) had contracts with a finish date of 31st August 2019. Noting that this represented close to 20% of the teaching workforce, the Panel agreed further examination of this matter was required. Whilst further information was provided to the Panel that highlighted inaccuracies in the original figure (69 vacancies were later identified) and by 10th September 2019 all but seven vacancies had been filled, the Panel agreed that a review was required.

The Panel agreed that whilst the review should focus on gathering the quantitative data available from the Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) and Human Resources, in relation to teacher recruitment and retention over the past five years, it was also important to gather qualitative data from existing and former teachers to understand their views of the issues being faced. The Panel therefore commissioned 4insight to undertake focus groups with current and former teachers and lecturers during October 2019. The focus groups involved 37 individuals and sought to understand the successes and challenges being faced to recruit and retain teachers and lecturers as well as identify the support and changes required to address the issues raised. The Panel would like to place on record its thanks to 4insight for undertaking the focus groups and all those who participated in them.

The Panel has found that the data currently collected in relation to teacher recruitment and retention is not particularly clear. Specifically, there appears to be a lack of data in relation to the reasons why teachers and lecturers are leaving the profession, as well as an apparent ineffective exit interview process which, in 2019, was only undertaken by 20% of the teachers leaving their roles. The Panel has recommended that urgent attention be given to collecting stronger and accurate data as well as developing a fit for purpose exit interview process and policy. Whilst the figures show that there has been a relatively stable headcount over the past five years, there are concerns that declaring headcount and Full-Time equivalent (FTE) staff in schools is being focussed on over the needs of the schools and communities, especially in relation to part time and job share opportunities that could help retain experienced staff. The Panel has recommended that the Minister clarifies this issue and gives priority to expanding these opportunities to enable further flexibility in schools. The Panel also found that there is often a small pool from which to recruit teaching staff, however, the Jersey Graduate Teacher Training Programme was highlighted as a success with 88% of the staff trained since 2011 still teaching in Jersey.

The findings of the review can be broken down into two key areas; recruitment and retention. In relation to recruitment, the Panel identified a number of key issues through the focus groups, submissions and data collected. Whilst the salary and annual leave entitlements were identified by some as positives, the cost of living in the Island and impact this has on recruitment from overseas has, unsurprisingly, been highlighted as one of the biggest issues facing the recruitment of staff. This is a view shared by all parties, including the Minister for Education, and was identified by the focus groups as providing a lack of incentive to remain in the profession, especially with the lure of the finance industry with higher salaries. The recruitment process software was identified by all parties as being a time consuming and inefficient process which the Panel sees as not fit for purpose. This is being addressed through funding in the Government Plan, however, the Panel has recommended that consultation with recruiting managers at all levels should be undertaken to gather views on what a suitable and successful recruitment package should entail. The HR process in general was identified as being not as effective as it could be in supporting recruitment, however, further funding has been made available in the Government Plan to support improvement. The Panel found that there was a mixed opinion about the relocation package for teachers joining from overseas. The Panel has recommended that an HR professional with specific knowledge of the challenges and issues being faced by the education system oversees the development of recruitment strategies in education which give consideration to the wider personal and family circumstances associated with the person being recruited. The Panel will continue to monitor this situation accordingly.

In relation to retention, a large number of concerns were raised by the focus groups in relation to the lack of part time and job share opportunities within the teaching profession, which were felt to hamper retention of staff. The Panel has recommended that the Minister for Education should clarify how these opportunities are enabled and that a can-do' attitude is adopted to enable wider part-time and job share opportunities within teaching. The Panel also found from the focus groups that teachers and lecturers often felt undervalued for the work they do, with one participant commenting that the focus groups were the first time they had felt listened to. This in turn impacted staff wishing to remain in the profession. The Panel has recommended that further qualitative approaches to evidence gathering (e.g. focus groups etc.) should be established alongside the teacher's survey in order to help develop improvements and outcomes that promote a genuine value in the profession.

The Panel found that there is a conflicting view between the focus groups, submissions and CYPES departmental leadership in relation to the perception that teachers and lecturers are being placed under high levels of scrutiny, which are in turn affecting wellbeing. It was also found that a number of teachers felt the expectations in respect of their roles were extreme and too much was being asked of them. The Panel has recommended an urgent revaluation of the aims of teacher performance scrutiny in order to ensure it is being consistently applied, and that it promotes a culture of collaborative support as opposed to top down judgement. This should also include funding to enable professional development where required.

Workload was highlighted as one of the biggest barriers to retention within teaching and many felt that the current model and workload for teachers was unsustainable. The Minister for Education also acknowledged that an average working week for a teacher is in the region of 60 hours per week.

Many felt the lack of business and pastoral support was preventing teachers from actually teaching due to the amount of additional administrative processes they were being asked to undertake. Some also felt that there was a lack of social and emotional support for staff having to constantly deal with complex and pressing needs of students. The Minister for Education has acknowledged that the inclusion model for schools must be addressed and the Panel has recommended that this should adopt a multi-agency approach, in order to better target the support required for students. This is not to say that teachers should not have a role to play in the social and emotional wellbeing of students, however, in light of the issues raised in respect of workload, the Panel does feel this is an area in which further support should be targeted. The Panel has recommended that the Minister for Education identifies clear, long-term actions to reduce workload through consultation with classroom teachers in order to improve wellbeing. The Minister should also identify additional funding to urgently increase the business support for schools, with a view to freeing teachers and lecturers from undertaking tasks which are not directly related to their key role of teaching in the classroom.

The Panel found that there is a narrow progression route within the teaching profession, with many staff having to take on additional responsibilities without the corresponding progression or promotion. This was highlighted alongside limited opportunities for teachers and lecturers to undertake continued professional development (CPD), mainly due to the timing of the school day and additional workload. The Panel has recommended that the Minister for Education reviews the current CPD arrangements for teachers and lecturers and explores the implications of increasing access, both on and off Island, for staff to undertake it. In doing so, this should also ensure that staff are allocated time in order to share best practice within and across various establishments.

The Panel gathered significant evidence that suggests poor and abusive pupil behaviour is becoming an increasing challenge to teacher retention. Policies are in place to tackle these issues, however, it was felt that the lack of a full exclusion policy in the Island was of great concern, as students that may have been physically violent to staff could end up back in the very  same school.  The  Panel  has  recommended  that  the  Minister  for  Education  gives consideration to providing the option of full expulsion from a school or college and brings forward a requirement for a specific provision, separate to the schools, that focuses on addressing the underlying issues of the young person, with their interests at its core.

A lack of funding for the Education system in the Island was also highlighted as an issue affecting retention of staff, as this in turn added pressure on teachers to undertake additional tasks. The Minister for Education commissioned an independent school funding review and is in the process of developing an action plan to bring forward its recommendations, with funding being identified in the upcoming Government Plan. The Panel has recommended that all recommendations within this report are actioned as soon as practicable, with a view to having additional funding in place in January 2021.

Ultimately, the focus groups and submissions found that poor recruitment and retention of teachers has a direct impact on students, their learning, behaviour and feeling of security. The Panel recognises the dedication and hard work of teachers and lecturers in Jersey and would like to thank all those who work to educate the Island's children and young people.

There is a fundamental belief from the evidence received that children and young people deserve to be taught by teachers and lecturers who are valued and have a genuine access to opportunities that help them develop as professionals. The Panel has concluded that in order to achieve this there must be a greater recognition of the value of the profession and significant increases in funding the support it. This will also require a re-examination of the culture of the education system which appears to have created barriers to the fundamental concept that teachers and lecturers are employed to provide an inspirational education to children and young people.

3. Key Findings and Recommendations

NB: Each key finding, and recommendation contains reference to the section of the report where further information and explanation can be found.

1. Key Findings

Key Finding 1

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills does not collect specific information in relation to whether teachers have left the profession entirely or continued teaching in overseas or non-provided schools. Teachers who move to non-provided schools are currently recorded as other employment in Jersey'. [Section 5.3]

Key Finding 2

There is a lack of data in relation to the number of teachers who have undertaken exit interviews over the past 5 years. Of the data available to the Panel in 2019, under 20% of staff have engaged in the process. [Section 5.4]

Key Finding 3

There is a prevailing view that the process for engaging teachers in exit interviews is not effective and there appears to be confusion over the various means through which they can be conducted. The lack of available data supports this position. As a result of the current process there are significant missed opportunities to better understand the teaching workforce and identify areas for improvement underpinned by professional experience. This would be beneficial for both the employer and Teaching staff. The Panel would therefore conclude that the current process is not fit for purpose. [Section 5.4]

Key Finding 4

The overall teacher headcount as of the end of September over the past five years has remained relatively stable. The same can be said of the number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) posts. There are, however, concerns that there is a focus on declaring headcount and FTE staff in schools, rather than looking at the needs of the school and children within the community. [Section 5.5]

Key Finding 5

The evidence received appears to suggest that there is a small field of recruitment from which to appoint to teaching vacancies. There are also concerns over the level of quality of applicants applying for vacancies. [Section 5.6]

Key Finding 6

There is a high retention rate for teachers working in Jersey secondary schools who qualified through the Jersey Graduate Teacher Training Programme. Of the 57 who completed the programme since 2011, 88% are still teaching in Jersey. It should be noted, however, that the Jersey Graduate Teacher Training Programme is specific to Jersey and is not transferable to allow those qualified to teach in other jurisdictions. This may, therefore, be one of the reasons for the high retention rate as those qualified are unable to work elsewhere. [Section 5.7]

Key Finding 7

The focus groups highlighted a number of successes in relation to teacher recruitment including, the Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT) programme, information about the costs of living and that Jersey is a safe place to live and work. There is a perception from the submissions that  Jersey  has  higher  salary  bandings  compared  to  the  UK,  increased  annual  leave entitlement and higher standard of living. This, however, should be seen in the context of the increased cost of living. The Panel would argue that whilst the raw' salary banding may be higher, they do not take into account the cost of living issues specific to Jersey. It could therefore be argued that, dependent on individual circumstances, some teachers are worse off in real terms than the comparative figures elsewhere. The Executive view is that the current workforce is relatively stable. [Section 6.4.1]

Key Finding 8

Cost of living, lower starting salaries compared to the UK and the finance industry proving more attractive employment opportunities were highlighted by the focus groups as contributing to the lack of incentive to remain in the teaching profession. Cost of living was highlighted by the Minister for Education and other submissions as being a challenge to effective recruitment. The Panel holds concerns that the decision to cut Newly Qualified Teachers' salaries has not been reversed. The Panel would also raise the contradiction of these observations in relation to some of the perceived strengths that have been outlined on teacher recruitment. [Section 6.4.3]

Key Finding 9

There is widespread agreement that the current recruitment software (TalentLink) is inefficient and acts as a disincentive for applicants. It has also been highlighted by managers as being a time consuming and restrictive process. The Panel would contend that this system is therefore not fit for purpose. £28 million worth of funding has been allocated over the four years of the Government Plan under the Integrated Technology Solution project, of which part will seek to replace this system. [Section 6.4.4]

Key Finding 10

There is widespread agreement that the current Human Resources process is not as effective as it could be in supporting recruitment. Some in the focus groups explained that they had been in post for up to six months without having received a contract. Funding has been set aside in the Government Plan in order to address the HR process. [Section 6.4.5]

Key Finding 11

Head Teachers have to give consideration to best practice in relation to providing part-time or job share opportunities, however, unlike the UK, they are not compelled by legislation to give full consideration to anyone with a child up to the age of five. It has been suggested that if the decision to grant part-time hours was not in the best interests of the children in the school then this would go against the strategic priority to put children first. There is also a lack of clarity over who makes the final decision over any appeals for rejected claims for part-time requests. [Section 6.4.6]

Key Finding 12

There is a mixed opinion about the current relocation package in place to support teachers who are moving to the Island when appointed. Whilst some examples in the focus groups felt it was comprehensive, others felt very little information was given at all. [Section 6.4.8]

Key Finding 13

Work is ongoing to develop new models for workforce planning as there is limited insight and data available in relation to staff turnover. [Section 6.5.1]

Key Finding 14

There was a theme arising from the focus groups that teachers felt undervalued for the work they do. There was an acknowledgment from the Minister for Education that whilst there was a perception of public negativity towards the profession there was also a significant amount of support for the profession as well. [Section 6.5.3]

Key Finding 15

There is a conflicting view between the focus groups, submissions and the departmental leadership in relation to the perception that staff are being placed under high levels of scrutiny which is in turn impacting teacher wellbeing. [Section 6.5.4]

Key Finding 16

The focus groups highlighted extreme expectations as one of the main challenges to retention of teachers. This included views that the tasks expected to be undertaken by teachers could not be completed in the time available to do them. There was an acknowledgment from the Primary Head Teachers that expectations had an effect on teacher's wellbeing. [Section 6.5.5]

Key Finding 17

There is a prevailing view that the current workload for teachers is unsustainable and is among one of the largest factors affecting the retention of staff. This is supported by the Minister for Education's view that the average working week for a teacher is 60 hours. There is a view that more pastoral and business support is required to free teachers up to teach which is supported by the Minister for Education. [Section 6.5.6]

Key Finding 18

The focus groups and submissions highlighted a lack of support for teachers in relation to inclusion, administrative, business, social and emotional support for staff. There is recognition from the Minister for Education that more funding is required to develop an inclusion model for students and increase the opportunities for teachers to collaborate and support each other. [Section 6.5.7]

Key Finding 19

The evidence received suggests that there is a narrow progression route for teachers with many having to take on additional responsibilities without the corresponding progression or promotion. There is also a view that, whilst continued professional development is available, there are limited opportunities for teachers to engage in it. [Section 6.5.8]

Key Finding 20

There is substantial evidence to suggest that poor and abusive pupil behaviour is becoming an increasing challenge to teacher retention. Whilst there are policies in place to mitigate and manage these issues, there is concern about the lack of a full exclusion policy in the Island. [Section 6.5.9]

Key Finding 21

A lack of funding for schools has been identified as having a major impact on retention due to the added pressure it places on teachers to undertake additional tasks. The Minister for Education has commissioned an independent review of school funding which was due to report during early 2020. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the report was not presented to the Council of Ministers until July 2020. [Section 6.5.10]

Key Finding 22

There is widespread agreement that poor recruitment and retention of teachers has a direct impact on students learning, behaviour and feeling of security. [Section 6.6]

2. Recommendations

Recommendation 1

In order to provide clearer data in relation to the reasons why teachers are leaving Government of Jersey schools, the Minister for Education should update the leavers' questionnaire to include the options of whether a teacher is moving to a non-provided school, continuing in the profession overseas, or leaving the profession entirely. There should be a requirement for the questionnaires to be completed and the relevant data collected, maintained and analysed so that any relevant trends can be identified. [Section 5.3]

Recommendation 2

The  Minister  for  Education  should,  in  consultation  with  relevant  Human  Resources professionals and the Head Teachers, develop an exit interview process which is consistent in its approach and collects both qualitative and quantitative data. This should be cognisant of the professional nature of teaching, the opinions of professionals at all levels of responsibility and subsequent value should be given to this. It should actively encourage staff to participate in the interviews and clarify the various means through which they can be conducted with a target  of  100%  of  staff  undertaking  them.  Whilst  the  ongoing  Covid-19  situation  is acknowledged, this should be completed to allow it to be rolled out by the end of May 2021 for the first available time that staff are able to hand in their notice during the academic year. [Section 5.4]

Recommendation 3

The Minister for Education should provide clarity on the relative headcount versus full time equivalent in schools. Priority should be given to expanding job share opportunities within full time equivalents because of the flexibility this provides head teachers to enable flexible working and providing for the needs of the individual schools and community. [Section 5.5]

Recommendation 4

The Minister for Education should direct Skills Jersey to undertake research in order to establish the median graduate starting salary in Jersey by individual sector, as well as the Island as a whole. This should then be used as the starting point for any consideration in relation to the starting pay of Newly Qualified Teachers. [Section 6.4.3]

Recommendation 5

The Government for Jersey should consult with recruiting managers at all levels and gather their views on what a suitable and successful recruitment software package should entail, prior to undertaking any procurement process. [Section 6.4.4]

Recommendation 6

The Minister for Education should provide further clarity on how part-time and job-share opportunities within schools are enabled, with an emphasis on the application of flexible working and the developing policies of the Government of Jersey in respect of equality. Support should also be provided to Head Teachers in relation to timetabling and any other obstacles, and a can-do' attitude should be adopted to enable wider part-time and job share opportunities. [Section 6.4.6]

Recommendation 7

The Minister for Education, in consultation with People Hub, should ensure that an HR professional with specific experience, knowledge and training of the challenges and issues being faced by the education system oversees the development and implementation of recruitment strategies in education. This role should sit within the Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills and have responsibility for the entire onboarding process for teachers and their families, especially those being recruited from overseas. This should also give consideration to the wider personal/family circumstances associated with the person being recruited, both financial and societal. [Section 6.4.8]

Recommendation 8

The States Employment Board should ensure that the Minister for Education is fully involved and informed of any developments in relation to new models for workforce planning. This is in order to ensure that the relevant data is being collected and analysed in respect of the recruitment and retention of teacher and lecturers. [Section 6.5.1]

Recommendation 9

The Minister for Education should establish, alongside the current Teachers' Survey, a qualitative approach to listening to and gathering the views of teachers and lecturers in relation to the issues which affect them as professionals. This should seek to develop specific improvements and outcomes that promote a genuine value in the profession and inspire confidence  that  genuine  professional  dialogue  exists  between  teachers,  lecturers  and leadership. [Section 6.5.3]

Recommendation 10

An urgent revaluation should be undertaken by the Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills; with outcomes reported to the Minister for Education of the aims of teacher performance scrutiny. This should include the consistency of application of current processes and its effectiveness in developing staff. A clear statement guiding the culture of performance scrutiny to one of collaborative support rather than top down judgement should be developed with classroom teachers and lecturers. Funding should also be allocated to enable professional development requirements. [Section 6.5.4]

Recommendation 11

The Minister for Education should identify clear actions to reduce workload through direct consultation with classroom teachers and lecturers via regular forums and focus groups. This should have a clear focus on wellbeing and identify long-term sustainable actions that support staff in their key role of teaching. [Section 6.5.6]

Recommendation 12

As a matter of urgency, the Minister for Education should identify funding to increase the business support for schools. This should be done in order to free up teachers from having to undertake tasks that are not directly related to the key role of teaching in the classroom. [Section 6.5.6]

Recommendation 13

The Minister for Education should develop a new multi-agency inclusion model for schools as a matter of priority. This policy should target support for students to the most relevant agency in order to reduce the burden being placed on teaching staff in relation to addressing emotional support amongst students. [Section 6.5.7]

Recommendation 14

The  Minister  for  Education  should  review  the  current  offer  of  continued  professional development opportunities for teachers in the Island and explore the implications of increasing the funding available for teachers to undertake training both on and off-island. This should also ensure that classroom teachers are given allocated time in order to share best practice within and across establishments. [Section 6.5.8]

Recommendation 15

In developing a new inclusion model for schools, the Minister for Education should give consideration to amending the exclusion policy to provide the option of full student expulsion from a school or college. Therefore, there should be a requirement for a specific provision, separate to the schools, with a focus on identifying and addressing the underlying issues with the long-term success of the young person at its heart. [Section 6.5.9]

Recommendation 16

The  Minister  for  Education  should  ensure  that  any  recommendations  arising  from  the Independent School Funding Review are implemented as soon as practicable, ideally in time for January 2021. [Section 6.5.10]

4. Introduction

1. Context of the Review

1. In 2017, Teachers were asked to complete a survey which aimed to identify the views of the profession in relation to a number of matters such as satisfaction with the role and areas for improvement. The Survey found that although 83% of teachers were either very or fairly satisfied with their roles (33% and 49% respectively), there had been an increase in those who were not satisfied or not at all satisfied since the 2015 survey[1]. The survey also found that 1 in 5 teachers working within the non-fee-paying schools reported being unsatisfied with their role (21%) which was higher than those working in fee paying schools (14%).[2]
2. Among some of the reasons given in relation to concern, working long hours (69%) and the pressure to achieve results (67%) were highlighted the most[3]. Among other stats presented, 58% of those surveyed reported that they had considered leaving the profession within the past 12 months[4] whilst only 35% of secondary teachers and 25% of primary teachers felt their happiness and well-being was viewed as being important.[5]
3. During a quarterly public hearing with the Minister for Education on 14th June 2019, the Children, Education and Home Affairs Panel (hereafter the Panel') requested an update on the number of teachers that had handed in their notice as of 31st May 2019. The Group Director for Education confirmed at the time that 154 teachers (83 primary and 71 secondary) had a finish date of 31st August.[6]
4. Noting that this figure represented nearly 20% of the total teaching workforce[7] the Panel agreed that it would conduct a review to gather the views of the teaching profession in relation to the issues affecting recruitment and retention. It was agreed that conducting focus groups with current and former teachers would be the best method through which to capture these views.
5. It was later confirmed by CYPES that the initial figure of 154 teachers handing in their notice was in fact incorrect. An amended figure of 69 (as of 31st May 2019) was provided to the Panel on 30th August which explained that the initial figure of 154 had mistakenly included Teaching Assistants and staff leaving lunch time cover roles.[8] The 69 roles were broken down as follows:

• 35 fixed term contracts ending (13 of which were extended between May and August 2019 – 10 secondary, 21 primary and 4 at Mont-à-l'Abbé)

• 12 staff moving to other schools within the Government of Jersey

• 18 Resignations (11 provided no reason, 4 leaving the Island and 3 were entering other employment in the Island)

• 4 Retirements[9]

6. The Minister subsequently wrote to the Panel on 6th September 2019 to provide a further update on the number of vacancies. The Panel was informed that once the 13 fixed term contracts had been extended, the remaining 56 teaching contracts with a 31st August end date had been subsequently recruited to.[10] Subsequent staff movements resulted in a level of seven vacancies as of 6th September 2019.[11] A Government news release was published on 10th September 2019 explaining that the seven vacancies totalled 0.9% of the total workforce and cover was in place to mitigate the vacancies.[12]
7. The Panel subsequently requested additional data relating to the recruitment and retention of teachers, which is presented in the next section of this report and within the section detailing the findings of the focus groups.

2. Work undertaken by the Panel

8. As stated previously, in order to gather the views of current and former teachers about recruitment and retention in the Island, the Panel agreed to commission focus groups to capture this information. It was felt that adopting a qualitative approach to evidence gathering would allow the opportunity for a narrative to be presented, as well as provide examples and issues that would complement or expand upon any quantitative data collected.
9. The Panel commissioned 4insight (a local research consultancy agency) to undertake these focus groups during October 2019. The main objectives of the research were to identify:

• The main successes in relation to teacher recruitment and retention

• The motivations that keep teachers working within the profession

• The main challenges for teachers that affect recruitment and retention

• What support is in place to deal with these challenges

• What is required to better deal with these challenges

• What support/training/structures could be implemented to deal with the challenges

• What is the perceived impact of poor recruitment and retention of staff on students

10. Invitations to take part in this piece of independent research were developed in collaboration between the Panel and 4insight and sent out by various methods. 4insight sent information to their panel of over 2,800 Islanders and the Panel undertook promotion over social and traditional media, and by promotion within the schools and colleges. Respondents were asked to contact 4insight directly, where they were screened to an agreed screener questionnaire, which aimed to include a mix of the teaching demographics such as primary/secondary, fee-paying/non-fee-paying schools, time in service, gender and current/left the profession. This enabled the research to capture the level of depth and understanding needed from both the rationale and emotional perspectives of why there may be issues with teacher recruitment and retention.

11. Six focus groups with a total of 37 participants were undertaken during October 2019. This included one group each for current primary and secondary teachers and those who had left the profession, as well as three groups with a mix of participants. The groups were conducted to a topic/discussion guide which was approved by the Panel. The results of the focus groups were analysed and presented to the Panel by 4insight and a copy of the final report can be found in appendix two.
12. In order to complement the information being collected through the focus groups, the Panel wrote to all head teachers and teaching unions requesting their views on teacher recruitment and retention including the key objectives and Terms of Reference for the review. After the Panel had been provided with the findings from the focus group exercise, additional data and information was requested from the Minister for Education. A public hearing was held on 24th January 2020 where the Panel discussed some of the key issues with the Minister.
13. The Panel would like to place on record its thanks to 4insight for undertaking the focus groups; the participants of the focus groups for giving up their time to contribute to the review; the staff in all the Island's schools; and also the Minister and her team for their engagement in the review of this important issue.

5.  [13]Recruitment and Retention Data

1. Recruitment and Retention over the past 5 years

14. In order to provide context over the figures provided by the Minister for Education at the quarterly hearing in June 2019 (and subsequent letters), the Panel agreed that the review's  Terms  of  Reference  should  include  an  examination  of  recruitment  and retention figures over the past five years.
15. The Panel requested a breakdown of the following areas:

• The number of staff that have left the profession

• The number of staff that have retired and are due to retire in the next five years

• The  number  of  staff  that  have  been  recruited  and  retained  through  any recruitment initiatives (i.e. Jersey Graduate Teacher Training Programme)

• The number of staff that have engaged in exit interviews

• The overall qualified teacher headcount per year

• The average size of the field of recruitment for vacancies over the past five years

2. Staff retired over the past five years

16. The number of staff that have retired over the past five years is as follows:

13

17. The Panel also found that there are due to be 52 teachers retiring over the next five years (2020 – 2024).[14] This information is based on HR data at the end of December 2019 as well as using ages based on the Jersey Teachers Superannuation Fund (JTSF). It should be noted that if a teacher joined the JTSF before 1st January 2007, normal retirement would occur at 60, otherwise the normal retirement age would be 65.[15]

3. Staff that have left the profession over the past five years

18. The Panel was provided with the following figures in relation to the number of staff that had left Government of Jersey schools over the past five years:

16

19. The Department for CYPES explained that the data only identifies teachers who have left a Government of Jersey school and does not identify whether they have left the profession or not. It was explained that some of the teachers within the figures may have continued their careers in non-Government of Jersey schools or overseas.[16]
20. The Panel was, however, able to receive data relating to the number of teachers who have moved from Government of Jersey schools to other Government of Jersey non- fee-paying and fee-paying schools over the past five years:

18

21. The Department also confirmed that it does not collect data on whether staff are leaving to teach at a non-provided school (De La Salle, Beaulieu, St. Michael's etc.), however,  it  does  record  this  as  other  employment  in  Jersey'.19  Likewise,  the Department confirmed that it does not hold data on whether teachers have left the profession entirely, as the reasons for leaving on the leavers' questionnaire do not record this.20
22. Given the data provided (including the number of staff who have retired) and the fact that the Department does not hold certain data relating to staff leaving, the Panel has calculated the numbers in the table below to relate to the number of staff leaving Government of Jersey schools over the past five years with no known reason given for doing so:

23. It should be noted that these figures do not equate to staff leaving the profession entirely, however, as the Department does not actively record this data it is not possible to identify how many of these teachers have moved to other non-provided schools or another profession entirely.

24. The Panel also requested the number of teachers currently employed within specific age brackets and were provided with the following information:

21

25. It is also worth noting that the 56 vacancies identified by the department as of 31st August 2019 came from employees within the following age brackets:

22

Key Finding 1

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills does not collect specific information in relation to whether teachers have left the profession entirely or continued teaching in overseas or non-provided schools. Teachers who move to non-provided schools are currently recorded as other employment in Jersey'.

Recommendation 1

In order to provide clearer data in relation to the reasons why teachers are leaving Government of Jersey schools, the Minister for Education should update the leavers' questionnaire to include the options of whether a teacher is moving to a non-provided school, continuing in the profession overseas, or leaving the profession entirely. There should be a requirement for the questionnaires to be completed and the relevant data collected, maintained and analysed so that any relevant trends can be identified.  

4. Number of staff that have engaged in Exit Interviews

26. The Panel has noted that information relating to the number of exit interviews held has not been as forthcoming as other information. Noting the number of staff that have left Government of Jersey schools over the past five years, no corresponding data is available to say how many undertook exit interviews.[17] It was explained that this information is not held centrally.[18]
27. The Panel was, however, informed that of the 56 vacancies that occurred as of 31st May 2019, 10 teachers undertook exit interviews.[19] This equates to less than 20% of those leaving roles in Government of Jersey schools.

28. The Panel questioned what the exit interview process and policy was and received the following response from the Department:

"All staff are offered an exit Interview. The staff have the choice of whether to undertake this. The exit interviews can be undertaken by either the Line Manager or a member of the HR Team. There is a template form that is completed and is held by the CYPES HR team. All staff are asked if feedback can be shared and if agreed, this will be acted upon. Trends are also identified and reported on.[20]"

29. Staff are able to undertake exit interviews with either their line manager or a member of the HR team.
30. It was also explained that an exit interview is offered to the teacher by the Head or Deputy Head Teacher either by email or face to face.[21] In the submission from the NEU, it was explained that the union had received numerous complaints from teachers that have resigned that they have not been offered exit interviews.[22] The NEU went on to say that:

Only recently was a further push done by HR to remind the headteachers that they should be offering these as standard when staff hand in their resignation. It also came to light that members of school senior management were not aware that exit interviews could be conducted through various means. This has highlighted there is a distinct lack of communication between schools, teachers on the ground and HR. These interviews are vitally important as it gives valuable insight into why staff are leaving but they are just not being done.[23]

31. Given the lack of data around the number of exit interviews that are completed, and the conflicting views that staff are even being offered them, it would appear that further examination of the process is required to ensure it is operating as effectively as possible.

Key Finding 2

There is a lack of data in relation to the number of teachers who have undertaken exit interviews over the past 5 years. Of the data available to the Panel in 2019, under 20% of staff have engaged in the process.

Key Finding 3

There is a prevailing view that the process for engaging teachers in exit interviews is not effective and there appears to be confusion over the various means through which they can be conducted. The lack of available data supports this position. As a result of the current process there are significant missed opportunities to better understand the teaching workforce and identify areas for improvement underpinned by professional experience. This would be beneficial for both the employer and Teaching staff. The Panel would therefore conclude that the current process is not fit for purpose.

[24]Recommendation 2

The  Minister  for  Education  should,  in  consultation  with  relevant  Human  Resources professionals and the Head Teachers, develop an exit interview process which is consistent in its approach and collects both qualitative and quantitative data. This should be cognisant of the professional nature of teaching, the opinions of professionals at all levels of responsibility and subsequent value should be given to this. It should actively encourage staff to participate in the interviews and clarify the various means through which they can be conducted with a target  of  100%  of  staff  undertaking  them.  Whilst  the  ongoing  Covid-19  situation  is acknowledged, this should be completed to allow it to be rolled out by the end of May 2021 for the first available time that staff are able to hand in their notice during the academic year.

5. Overall qualified teacher headcount over the past five years

32. The Panel requested data relating to the number of qualified teachers that have been employed over the past five years and received the following information (this is based on teacher headcount at the end of September each year):

30

33. It should be noted that the above figures are solely qualified teachers and do not include school staff, Heads and Deputy Heads and Highlands College Lecturers. The Panel  was  informed  that  there  are  currently  536  teaching  assistants  either  on permanent or fixed-term contracts as of December 2019.[25] There are currently 35 Head Teachers, 39 Deputy Head Teachers and 250 Lecturers across Government of Jersey Schools, non-fee-paying schools and 4 Head Teachers and 4 Deputy Head Teachers in the fee-paying Government of Jersey schools. There are also 111 college lecturers and one Principal employed at Highlands College.[26]
34. From the figures provided, it suggests that teacher headcount has remained relatively similar and stable over the past five years. This is also true of the comparative figures for full-time equivalent staff over the past five years.
35. In the submission from all of the primary Head Teachers, it was identified that there are frustrations over declaring headcount and how many FTE staff work in schools rather than looking at the needs of the school and the children in the community.[27] Concern was also raised over the accuracy of the teaching supply list.[28]

Key Finding 4

The overall teacher headcount as of the end of September over the past five years has remained relatively stable. The same can be said of the number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) posts. There are, however, concerns that there is a focus on declaring headcount and FTE staff in schools, rather than looking at the needs of the school and children within the community.  

Recommendation 3

The Minister for Education should provide clarity on the relative headcount versus full time equivalent in schools. Priority should be given to expanding job share opportunities within full time equivalents because of the flexibility this provides head teachers to enable flexible working and providing for the needs of the individual schools and community.

6. Size of field of recruitment over the past five years

36. The Panel requested information about the average size of the field of recruitment for the 56 vacancies that occurred as of 31st May 2019. It also requested information about the number of applicants that were short-listed and interviewed for each of the vacancies. The Department for CYPES informed the Panel that as the information required to answer these questions came from three different systems, and without a consistent unique identifier, it was not possible to accurately identify the 56 vacancies alongside recruitment information specific to them.[29]
37. The Department was, however, able to provide the Panel with information relating to the number of applicants, vacancies and average applicants per role over the past five years:

38. A consistent theme was highlighted in multiple submissions that the size of the field of recruitment for teaching roles was small. In the submission from the Head Teacher of Victoria College it was suggested that the quality of candidates being attracted to interviews was not always high.[31] Likewise, the following issue was highlighted by the Principal of Highlands College:

As an example, one Assistant Principal who line manages 5 departments, has recruited 10 staff in two years. 50% were recruited off-island. The field of applicants was often small, even from the UK.[32]

39. The NEU also raised concern over the size of the recruitment pool and provided the following example of one such role:

Most recently in one school a predominantly GCSE core subject teacher has been replaced by an unqualified JTTP teacher, having only been on the course four months. Therefore, the candidate is unable to properly fulfil the role and so extra pressure, workload and accountability is being placed on remaining staff to take over  exam classes  part  way  through  the  academic  year.  This  was the  only candidate that applied.[33]

40. Although  not  directly  related  to  Jersey,  the  NASUWT  provided  statistics  that highlighted a drop in the number of applicants for the UCAS Teacher Training (UTT) application scheme in 2018.[34] It was explained that between 2010, when 67,289 applicants entered into the formal initial teacher training (ITT) recruitment process, and 2018, the number of applicants had fallen by 32%.[35] It was suggested that this period coincided with the imposition of significant pay freezes and restraints on the teaching profession. The NASUWT went on to say that Jersey is very largely, if not totally, dependent on the United Kingdom for the training of teachers and the vast majority of off-island appointments come from the United Kingdom.[36]
41. Whilst this information does not directly relate to the number of teachers applying for teaching roles, it is clear that there is a correlation between the number of applicants applying for teacher training courses and the number of applicants to vacant teaching roles. This, coupled with the evidence received about the small pool of applicants, would suggest that there is a small pool from which to recruit that is in turn impacting the ability to recruit to vacancies.

Key Finding 5

The evidence received appears to suggest that there is a small field of recruitment from which to appoint to teaching vacancies. There are also concerns over the level of quality of applicants applying for vacancies.  

7. Staff recruited and retained from recruitment initiatives

42. The Panel requested information on the number of teachers who have been recruited to the Jersey Graduate Teacher Training Programme (JGTTP) since its inception in 2005. It was explained that more than 100 teachers had completed the course.[37] The course was designed to train local people with relevant degrees in shortage/high demand subjects in secondary schools.
43. The Department informed the Panel that of the 57 who completed the programme since 2011, 50 (88%) are still teaching in Jersey.[38] Until the current academic year (2019/2020), the Panel was informed that all bar one JGTTP trainee had worked in Jersey secondary schools, with the exception being a cross-phase teacher of Special Educational Needs (SEN) at Mont-à-l'Abbé.

44. The National Education Union (NEU) commented in their submission, that data in relation to those recruited through the JGTTP (among other data) was hard to come by and had not been forthcoming.[39] It should also be noted that the JGTTP is not transferable  to  other  jurisdictions  and  the  Panel  understands  that  teachers  who complete it are only qualified to teach in Jersey.

Key Finding 6

There is a high retention rate for teachers working in Jersey secondary schools who qualified through the Jersey Graduate Teacher Training Programme. Of the 57 who completed the programme since 2011, 88% are still teaching in Jersey. It should be noted, however, that the Jersey Graduate Teacher Training Programme is specific to Jersey and is not transferable to allow those qualified to teach in other jurisdictions. This may, therefore, be one of the reasons for the high retention rate as those qualified are unable to work elsewhere.  

6.  Analysis of focus groups

1. Introduction to focus groups

45. As explained in the introduction, the Panel agreed to conduct focus groups in order to capture the views of current and former teachers about recruitment and retention in the Island. The Panel produced an engagement brief and circulated it to local research companies, in order for them to tender for the project. As a result of this process the Panel appointed 4insight to conduct the focus groups.
46. The project scope was limited to Jersey and the target sample included current teachers, those who had handed in their notice and teachers who had recently left the profession for various reasons or moved. Non-fee-paying and fee-paying schools were addressed as the satisfactions rates highlighted in the 2017/18 Teachers' Survey were different across these two types of schools.
47. Invitations were developed in collaboration with the Panel and 4insight and they were sent  out  across  various  mediums,  including  4insight's  panel  of  2,800  Islanders, traditional and social media and by promotion in collaboration with the Department for CYPES. Respondents were asked to contact 4insight directly where they undertook a screener questionnaire (agreed by the Panel) which aimed to include a mix of teachers across the primary, secondary, fee-paying and non-fee-paying sectors; as well as those who were no longer working in the profession.
48. Six focus groups were conducted to explore the views and reasonings across the varied teaching demographics. Each group was conducted with between six and nine qualified teachers with the composition for each group as follows

49. Each group lasted between 100 and 120 minutes (although planned at 90 minutes) and sought to address a number of objectives (set out in paragraph 9). All groups were digitally recorded and professionally analysed by 4insight. The Panel was invited to attend and observe the groups, however, did not have any contact with participants before or after the sessions took place.

2. Composition and Demographics of the focus groups

50. In total, 37 teachers took part in the focus groups, 10 of which were male and 27 of which were female. The following charts and tables provide an overview of the demographics within the focus groups:

Gender Type of Teacher

Higher Education 3

10 Tertiary 7

Secondary 21 27 Primary 10

Male Female

27 Age

6

3

1 19-30 31-50 51-65 65+

Employment

23

10

1 2 1

Full time Part-time Self employed Retired Unemployed employement employment

How long in the Teaching Profession

3-5 Years 6-8 Years 9+ Years

8%

14%

78%

Current teachers/ former teachers

9

28

Currently in the teaching profession

A former teacher now in a new profession

Subjects Taught

8

5 5

4

3 3

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1

Schools

7

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3. Detailed Results of focus groups and analysis of evidence received

51. For the purposes of this report, the findings of the focus groups will be separated into the findings relating to recruitment and the findings in relation to retention. The recruitment section will focus on key factors affecting recruitment, the participants experiences, successes for recruitment in Jersey and challenges. The section focusing on retention will look at some of the successes and key challenges identified by the groups. Each section will also include supporting evidence received from the submissions and public hearing with the Minister for Education that relates to the theme under discussion. A full breakdown of the results of the focus groups can be found in 4insight's presentation in appendix one.

4. Recruitment

1. Successes for recruitment

52. One of the key objectives of the focus groups was to identify the perceived successes of teacher recruitment in the Island. Several points were raised during the focus groups highlighting  what  the  participants  opinions  were  in  relation  to  successes.  These included:

• For 2 respondents cost of living was not a major factor, after living in big cities with high cost of living and long commute times, the pay seemed fair to them

• 2 respondents had been sat down and told all about the cost of living, rent prices etc, this was put in place after another member of staff went through the same process of moving to Jersey, but with no information in place to help him

• One respondent was very positive about being trained up, she received a grant from UK and Jersey & earned £12,000 to train to be a teacher. This helped her as she didn't start off with any debt.

• One positive was that the NQTs programme has been improved, making it more generic, so all NQTs get a basic grounding in certain things over the year. Such as on a Wednesday afternoon, they'll go and visit other schools, or be supported in some way[40]

• Many felt that Jersey was also a safe place to live and work

53. A number of successes were highlighted in the submissions received from Head Teachers and the Unions. The Primary Head Teacher and NEU highlighted their support for the successful Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT) programme and the support it received.4748
54. The submissions from Head Teacher of Victoria College and the Principal of Highlands College explained that in their view the salary banding in comparison to the UK was much higher, although this was noted in the context of a higher cost of living in Jersey.49

The Principal of Highlands College also highlighted the increased annual leave entitlement compared to the UK as an attractive incentive to lecturers.[41]

55. Other perceived successes highlighted from two submissions were that Jersey had lower teaching hours compared to the UK, the effective process for obtaining licences for teachers in specialist areas, a good standard of living and favourable tax and pension positions compared to the UK.[42]
56. The Panel questioned the Minister for Education on the perceived strengths of recruitment in the Island during a public hearing. The Group Director gave the following assessment:

Group Director, Education:

My considered view, having taught in Jersey and in another place for decades and returned, and talking to lots of  teachers, especially those who have experience of teaching in other places, Jersey has, by and large, got great children and young people to teach, great schools, the pay is better, the holiday is a bit longer, the facilities around the class sizes and some of the pressures that teachers who have joined Jersey maybe felt in other jurisdictions, perhaps the 4 countries of the United Kingdom or elsewhere, I get a lot of feedback from teachers saying it is refreshing, contrasting some of their previous experience to be able to focus more on teaching. It is not to say by any means it is perfect but if you are asking the question of some of the strengths, I would say those are some of them.[43]

57. The Group Director for People and Corporate Services also provided the following assessment of one of the strengths in Jersey:

Group Director, People and Corporate Services:

I think the thing that strikes me, having not been here too long, is the stability of the workforce. So where I have come from, from inner London, the turnover of teachers causes a lot of problems in terms of the standards, the quality and I  think  that  something  we  recognise  as  a  strength  is  the  stability  of  our workforce.[44]

58. There appears to be agreement across the evidence received that some of the strengths for teacher recruitment in Jersey includes higher pay and annual leave compared to other jurisdictions and a positive and successful NQT programme. It should be noted that this is a view expressed by stakeholders who have submitted evidence. The Panel acknowledges that on the face of it, the raw' salary bandings in Jersey do compare favourably against those in other jurisdictions, specifically the United Kingdom. One thing that is not taken into account by these comparisons is the cost of living impact on people working in Jersey compared to other jurisdictions. One particular issue relates to the cost of housing. Whereas in the UK a person could teach in central London but live outside the city and commute (therefore paying a lower rent or mortgage), in Jersey this is not possible.
59. The Panel would caution that any comments highlighting the favourable salary bandings should only be made in the context of the high cost of living in the Island. It would also suggest that further work is undertaken in order to establish the true impact of the wider Jersey factors' that arise in relation to recruitment and retention.

Key Finding 7

The focus groups highlighted a number of successes in relation to teacher recruitment including, the Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT) programme, information about the costs of living and that Jersey is a safe place to live and work. There is a perception from the submissions that  Jersey  has  higher  salary  bandings  compared  to  the  UK,  increased  annual  leave entitlement and higher standard of living. This, however, should be seen in the context of the increased cost of living. The Panel would argue that whilst the raw' salary banding may be higher, they do not take into account the cost of living issues specific to Jersey. It could therefore be argued that, dependent on individual circumstances, some teachers are worse off in real terms than the comparative figures elsewhere. The Executive view is that the current workforce is relatively stable. (Section 6.4.1)

2. Key Factors and Challenges for recruitment

60. At  the  outset  of  the  focus  groups,  participants  were  asked  to  give  first  word associations for how they would best describe recruitment of teachers in Jersey. The following thought cloud' shows the findings of the groups:

54

61. "Poor" was identified nine times, "difficult", five times and "crisis" was identified four times.
62. The overall finding of the focus groups was that recruitment of teachers in the Island was poor. Multiple reasons were given as to why this was the case, however, the main factors were believed to be as follows:

• Lack of incentive

• Many found recruitment to be a difficult and confusing process

• Lack of contracts

• Lack of opportunities, including part time/job shares

• Non-transferable qualifications

• Mixed opinion of the relocation package

• A preference to recruit off-island even when on-island options were available

63. The following sections will address each of the reasons listed above.

54 4insight report – p.11

3. Lack of incentive

Lack of incentive – this was identified in relation to living and housing costs being very high, a poor salary compared to UK and the large finance industry proving to be more attractive than the teaching profession;

64. The NASUWT highlighted pay, cost of living and salaries as one of the major pressures on teacher recruitment. Housing was especially highlighted as an issue, with the mix- adjusted average house price in Jersey cited as £483,000 which is considerably higher than the UK average at £226,000.[45] The following observation was made in relation to the cost of living:

NASUWT:

Although teachers' pay rates are higher than the equivalent reference point in the UK, the cost of basic commodities means that the purchasing power of Jersey teachers is actually considerably less than their colleagues in the UK, again acting as a significant disincentive to teachers looking to relocate.[46]

65. This was agreed by the Head of Victoria College who explained that cost of living and housing costs were a challenge. Further comment was made that there was no representative in place to meet with candidates to discuss what it was like to live in Jersey.[47]
66. When questioned during a public hearing, the Minister for Education agreed that cost of  living  was  one  of  the  biggest  Jersey  specific  challenges  for  recruitment  and retention.[48] This was further elaborated on by the Group Director for Education:

Group Director, Education:

Some of the feedback we get within cost of living, the biggest single component is one's accommodation. So rents and housing, the aspiration as a young professional to own your own home eventually is objectively more challenging in Jersey than most places. But that comes across not just in the public sector but in all sectors.[49]

67. In relation to salary, the Panel received the following information from the Minister for Education in relation to the starting salary for a Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT):

68. The following explanation for the change in the starting salary was also provided by the Minister for Education:

Minister for Education:

Changes to the starting salary of Newly Qualified Teachers (NQT) were first proposed as part of the MTFP 2017 – 2019 and the introduction of the change took effect from September 2017. From this date most NQTs joining the organisation were paid at the first increment of the Teacher pay scale instead of the previously used third increment. This accords with the original intention of the pay scale, and corrected subsequent informal policy changes. The exception to this change was for trainees already in the Jersey Graduate Teacher Training Programme (JGTTP), who had enrolled with the expectation of starting as NQTs on the third point. This was honoured for those starting in September 2017.[50]

69. It was stated in the NASUWT submission that whilst the teachers starting salary in Jersey was higher than the median starting salary for UK graduates of £30,000 (as per the High Fliers Research), it should be noted that a sixth of the places on the top graduate programmes now provide starting salaries of more than £40,000. 13 of the country's best-known graduate employers are paying salaries of at least £45,000 (in 2017) which is in excess of the starting salaries for teachers.[51]
70. Whilst it is acknowledged by the NASUWT that these figures relate to the UK and not Jersey, it states that as the graduate market is heavily skewed towards the finance industry it is likely that the median salary for graduates is going to be considerably higher than that in the UK.[52] The Panel requested whether any information existed in relation to the median graduate starting salary in Jersey, however, this information is not currently available.
71. Further information was provided by the NASUWT in relation to the loss in real terms of gross pay for teachers. Their submission states that between 2008 and 2017, RPI has increased by 17%, however, since 2008, teacher's pay has reduced by 8% in real terms when taking into account cost of living increases and pay awards.[53]
72. Further points from the submissions and the findings from the focus groups, in relation to pay, will be examined within the upcoming section on retention.

Key Finding 8

Cost of living, lower starting salaries compared to the UK and the finance industry proving more attractive employment opportunities were highlighted by the focus groups as contributing to the lack of incentive to remain in the teaching profession. Cost of living was highlighted by the Minister for Education and other submissions as being a challenge to effective recruitment. The Panel holds concerns that the decision to cut Newly Qualified Teachers' salaries has not been reversed. The Panel would also raise the contradiction of these observations in relation to some of the perceived strengths that have been outlined on teacher recruitment. (Section 6.4.3)

Recommendation 4

The Minister for Education should direct Skills Jersey to undertake research in order to establish the median graduate starting salary in Jersey by individual sector as well as the Island as a whole. This should then be used as the starting point for any consideration in relation to the starting pay of Newly Qualified Teachers. (Section 6.4.3)

4. Difficult and confusing process

Difficult and confusing process –using TalentLink was especially highlighted as being an issue, the overall recruitment process was deemed to be long and inconsistent (it was felt that sometimes there was a flood of teachers applying, sometimes there were none at all). Confusion with licences being issued to work was also highlighted

73. In the submission from the primary school Heads, it was felt that the HR systems for recruitment are restrictive; and the inefficiencies in the system have prevented some applications and wasted a significant amount of professional time.[54]
74. This was also highlighted as an issue by the Head Teacher of Victoria College who explained that better support from HR and PeopleHub was required to deal with this challenge and that there was a high drop-out rate between invitation to interview and the interview itself.[55] In the submission from the Principal of Highlands College it was explained that the process of recruiting is extremely slow and bureaucratic, and the onus is on managers to complete much of paperwork even though they did not have access to all systems and information.[56] It was suggested by the Principal of Highlands College that a Service Level Agreement (SLA) be developed between schools and PeopleHub about what could be expected.[57]
75. When questioned during a public hearing, the Group Director for People and Corporate Services gave the following assessment of the TalentLink system:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Just to go back to the recruitment process, the H.R. recruitment process, do you think that the current process and talent link is what is your assessment of it?

Group Director, People and Corporate Services:

I met with head teachers, secondary phase head teachers so whatever I think is probably exactly what they are thinking. Our candidate experience and also our recruiting head teacher experience is extremely poor. It is very clunky. I have no doubts that we probably lose candidates that we ought to be keeping through the process and it is one of the things, thanks to additional funding in the Government Plan that we are going to reconfigure. In doing that I want to work with head 11 teachers, as I will with other departments, about what works for them. I am acutely aware of the overheads that we are putting on them and their officers to do a lot of manual recruitment. We need to make it simpler for them. So had your question been, is it fit for purpose, I would have shortly just said: "No."[58]

76. The Panel notes that funding has been set aside within the Government Plan 2020- 2023 under the  Integrated Technology Solution project (p.175 R.91/2019) which commits £7.4 million in 2020, £9.2 million in 2021 and £11.4 million in 2022.[59] The Corporate  Services  Scrutiny  Panel  reviewed  this  project  in  its  report  on  the

Government Plan and found that this project will seek to replace TalentLink among other systems.[60]

Key Finding 9

There is widespread agreement that the current recruitment software (TalentLink) is inefficient and acts as a disincentive for applicants. It has also been highlighted by managers as being a time consuming and restrictive process. The Panel would contend that this system is therefore not fit for purpose. £28 million worth of funding has been allocated over the four years of the Government Plan under the Integrated Technology Solution project, of which part will seek to replace this system. (Section 6.4.4)

Recommendation 5

The Government for Jersey should consult with recruiting managers at all levels and gather their views on what a suitable and successful recruitment software package should entail, prior to undertaking any procurement process. (Section 6.4.4)

5. Lack of contracts

Lack of contracts – some participants explained that they had received contracts a significant amount of time after being appointed to the role.

77. This particular theme linked in with concerns raised across a number of submissions that the HR process was not as effective as it could be. The Minister for Education explained during a public hearing the steps that were being taken to address the issues within HR:

The Minister for Education:

I have been in the States 11 years now and H.R. has been the poor man of the public service for way too long. When we are talking about some of the issues that you raise with us with regards to recruitment and retention of teachers, right across the public sector, particularly in specialised areas, whether that is nurses, social workers, those types of areas because we have not invested in H.R. the right way. We did put in a large growth funding bid in the Government Plan for human resources, for I.T. (information technology), all those areas in order to bring all that together and bring into the 21st century.[61]

Key Finding 10

There is widespread agreement that the current Human Resources process is not as effective as it could be in supporting recruitment. Some in the focus groups explained that they had been in post for up to six months without having received a contract. Funding has been set aside in the Government Plan in order to address the HR process. (Section 6.4.5)

6. Lack of opportunities, including part time/job shares

Lack of opportunities, including part time/job shares – this was highlighted as being particularly prohibitive to women, especially those with young families.

78. This is an area that was highlighted often during the focus groups and was identified as being an issue. It was also felt that there was an inconsistency in approach from the individual schools and requests for part-time/job share opportunities were often rejected by schools. This mirrors evidence presented on pages 26 and 27 of the Gender Pay Gap Review Panel's report that was published in July 2019.[62] The Panel challenged  the  Minister  for  Education  on  the  notion  that  there  was  widespread resistance to part-time opportunities and received the following response from the Group Director for Education:

Group Director, Education:

So, in our estate we have got a lot of those roles. The default for somebody applying to have adaptations to their work, to work part time or to job share, all of our head teachers have to give due consideration because ultimately, they are the arbiters. If it just does not work for the good running of the organisation they have to look really hard at that and see can they accommodate.

The Deputy of St. John :

We gather that there is quite widespread resistance from the head teachers to offering job share or part-time roles.

Group Director, Education:

We discussed this at a previous hearing, Minister, you gave evidence where the majority of requests had been granted but you had had some more anecdotal feedback that and I think we invited through our E.C.C. process if there are cases we need to look at but I am pretty sure that the last time we furnished data the majority had said: "Yes."[63]

79. The Group Director went on the state that any application for part-time or job share roles would be made directly to the Head Teacher as the agent for the States Employment Board (SEB). It was explained during the public hearing with the Minister for Education that in the UK there is primary legislation which mandates that part-time opportunities for anyone with a child up to the age of 5 must have full consideration. The same legislative requirement does not exist in Jersey, however, the Department for CYPES does urge the same best practice.[64] Ultimately it was explained that if the decision was not in the best interests of the children in the school then that would be incompatible with the strategic priority to put children first.[65]
80. The Panel requested further information on the policy governing flexible working. It was provided with the Government of Jersey Flexible Working Policy' which was last reviewed on 11th September 2019. In the policy it states that any request for flexible working that is denied should be done so with a written explanation outlining the business and operational reasons for the decision. It goes on to state that any appeal from the employee must be submitted in writing within five days of the request being denied. This appeal is then determined by the Chief Officer whose decision is final.

81. This appears to be at odds with the evidence received from the Group Director who stated that the Head Teacher was the final arbiter of any decision.

Key Finding 11

Head Teachers have to give consideration to best practice in relation to providing part-time or job share opportunities, however, unlike the UK, they are not compelled by legislation to give full consideration to anyone with a child up to the age of five. It has been suggested that if the decision to grant part-time hours was not in the best interests of the children in the school then this would go against the strategic priority to put children first. There is also a lack of clarity over who makes the final decision over any appeals for rejected claims for part-time requests. (Section 6.4.6)

Recommendation 6

The Minister for Education should provide further clarity on how part-time and job-share opportunities within schools are enabled, with an emphasis on the application of flexible working and the developing policies of the Government of Jersey in respect of equality. Support should also be provided to Head Teachers in relation to timetabling and any other obstacles, and a can-do' attitude should be adopted to enable wider part-time and job share opportunities. [Section 6.4.6]

7. Non-transferable qualifications

Non-transferable qualifications – this was highlighted by some who had qualified and taught in other countries but could not teach in the Island due to the need for specific qualifications

82. This issue was not raised within any submissions. It does, however, raise questions in relation to the migration policy and how the Island attracts people with the relevant skills. It should also be noted that this is an issue specific to applicants from outside jurisdictions that use the Post Graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) as the relevant teaching qualification.  

8. Mixed opinion of the relocation package

Mixed opinion of the relocation package – some felt it was very comprehensive and some felt no information was given at all.

83. In their submission, the NEU perceived that the relocation package for teachers coming over from the UK was successful but did not think it provided much of an incentive for retention.[66]
84. The Principal of Highlands College explained that one of the main challenges was attracting UK based candidates and relocating them for shortage and specialist subject areas.[67] The Head Teacher of Victoria College shared the view that some teachers had good experiences of relocation, others poor.[68]

Key Finding 12

There is a mixed opinion about the current relocation package in place to support teachers who are moving to the Island when appointed. Whilst some examples in the focus groups felt it was comprehensive, others felt very little information was given at all. (Section 6.4.8)

Recommendation 7

The Minister for Education, in consultation with People Hub, should ensure that an HR professional with specific experience, knowledge and training of the challenges and issues being faced by the education system oversees the development and implementation of recruitment strategies in education. This role should sit within the Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills and have responsibility for the entire onboarding process for teachers and their families, especially those being recruited from overseas. This should also give consideration to the wider personal/family circumstances associated with the person being recruited, both financial and societal. (Section 6.4.8)

9. Preference to recruit off-island

Many  felt  that  schools  were  preferring  to  recruit  off-island,  even  if  local  talent  was available[69]

85. Although this theme was identified during the focus groups, submissions highlighted that  the  quality  of  on-island  recruitment  was  not  always  high  which  meant  that recruitment  was  expanded  off-island.  This  was  highlighted  by  the  Principal  of Highlands College and Head Teacher of Victoria College.[70] This links into the evidence presented in section 5.7 which highlights issues about the small pool of teachers from which to recruit.

10. Experiences of recruitment from focus groups

86. A number of experiences were recorded during the focus groups which spoke of the issues outlined above. Examples included:

"My experience of coming here was very poor in terms of HR support, no contract and I was never shown any terms and conditions until I'd been in post maybe 6 months. If I had known the terms and conditions, I wouldn't have taken the post because unlike the UK where we have academic contracts that talk about a certain number of hours teaching and the rest of the time you work on research and administration and scholarly activity, the contract here for higher education lecturers is based on the teacher's contract not a lecturer."[71]

"It's the second time in a year that we've had the issue where we've not received the contract fast enough from People Hub and another school has snatched that person up."[72]

"We appoint someone, but candidates don't accept, they back out because of the financial implication, like cost of housing etc."[73]

"We've advertised for 3 positions, we've advertised 3 times and the applications and the calibre and the employability of who we get is really poor."

"You know who's available and who's not available and you're looking for, but you've got to go through the whole rigmarole of advertising on island, having interviews, writing why this one so and so wasn't sort of good for the job and you waste so much money. It's absolutely ludicrous."[74]

5. Retention

1. Motivations and successes for retention

87. The focus groups identified a number of motivations and successes for the retention of teachers in Jersey, these included:

• Many said there was a great amount of talented staff, however keeping them is the biggest issue

• Most had lost motivation for their job, but helping the children was the only thing keeping them going

• Some felt there wasn't another job they could go in, so they felt stuck

• The small classroom sizes were a massive benefit in higher education coming from the UK, however those in secondary schools felt they were now too big

• Less commute time was a big positive for many coming from the UK[75]

88. Compared to the successes for recruitment it was noted that there were certainly less positives identified in relation to retention through the focus groups.
89. In the submissions received, a common theme was identified that commitment to the vocation was a key motivation for teachers and lecturers to continue in the role. This was articulated by the Primary Head Teachers, the Head Teacher of Victoria College, the  NEU  and  NASUWT.  The  Head  Teacher  of  Victoria  College  explained  that supportive and caring colleagues played a part,[76] whilst the Principal of Highlands College felt that building positive relationships with students and helping to transform lives were key motivators for staff in the profession.[77]
90. During  a  public  hearing,  the  Group  Director  for  People  and  Corporate  Services explained that whilst there will always be staff turnover, he felt it caused less issues in Jersey than elsewhere:

Group Director, People and Corporate Services:

There is always a turnover in schools, but it causes less issues here than where there is a larger churn or where people seek to move. My perception, and I do not want to get into the Minister or Seán's briefs, is that the standards of education here are higher, the stability of the workforce must contribute to that and that it allows us to give a very good narrative to when we want to attract people that they are coming into a supportive environment. [78]

91. The Panel questioned whether from a HR perspective there were any specific schools or areas in which turnover was higher:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

So, from a H.R. point of view, you are not seeing a churn of staff in specific areas, specific schools, specific sectors anywhere in our education system?

Group Director, People and Corporate Services:

I would not say it is well known that we do not have a huge amount of insight so some of this has to be about perception. But we will have the same issues around key or specific subjects, particularly S.T.E.M. (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), in the secondary phase, the primary phase seems relatively stable. The turnover is not as high and therefore that means that the issues that we can tackle can be done more systemically.[79]

92. It is noted that the insight and data for staff turnover is not as in depth as it could be. The Panel was informed that work is underway to improve this:

Group Director, People and Corporate Services:

So we are building up new models for workforce planning here and we will get a lot more insight about the type of turnover and the prediction, because some turnovers will be by retirement. So we do a lot more planning. I think when I arrived just over the summer, some of the questions were around how many vacancies do we have at the beginning of the year. We know where they are, we have plans to fill those but I think we are in a much better position through earlier planning to start saying and I think you picked up on some of this, around pooling teachers or targeting specific subjects. That is where we can improve.[80]

Key Finding 13

Work is ongoing to develop new models for workforce planning as there is limited insight and data available in relation to staff turnover. (Section 6.5.1)

Recommendation 8

The States Employment Board should ensure that the Minister for Education is fully involved and informed of any developments in relation to new models for workforce planning. This is in order to ensure that the relevant data is being collected and analysed in respect of the recruitment and retention of teacher and lecturers.

2. Key factors and challenges for retention

93. As with recruitment, participants in the focus groups were asked to provide first word associations for their perception of retention of teachers in Jersey. The following thought cloud' shows the responses:

Workload was identified five times, Poor four times, Cost of Living three times, Lack of flexibility twice and Work/life balance twice[81]

3. Retention Challenges – undervalued as a professional

94. A number of key retention challenges were identified throughout the focus groups, the first was that there was the prevailing theme of being undervalued as a professional. The following key points were raised in relation to this challenge:

• In all groups there was a main theme of lack of value and respect towards anyone within the teaching profession, in terms of behaviour, attitude, expectation, support and pay

• Lack of value for those who have committed extended service

• Lack of value from children through abusive behaviour filters down from parents' attitude towards teachers, overall lack of respect

• The way that the media portray teachers is "diabolical", which they felt is fuelled by what some States Members say

• Underpaid for the level of complexity that their role requires

• The differentials between the remuneration in secondary and primary being poor. One respondent was Headteacher of a primary school yet all the deputy heads in secondary were earning far more than her.[82]

95. Specific examples of this retention challenge included:

"I feel like I'm underpaid for the level of complexity that my role requires, the diversity of my role, certainly within the last 4 to 5 years has become extremely skilled, I'm a social worker, I'm a support worker, I'm a teacher, I'm a line manager, I'm an expert at child development. I feel like that expertise is not valued in terms of pay."

"It's got nothing to do with cost of living for me and that breaks my heart. Undervalued, undermining, lack of support from above, workload. Just this, we're working in a setting, and I'm only talking about my setting as I can only speak for myself, we're working in a setting that nobody has any confidence in how it's being run. It demotivates people."

"There's a lack of respect for teaching professionals, and there's no longevity and it's unfair given that they're talking about offering housing support for new teachers coming into the island but for teachers currently here you still can't get onto the property ladder, there's an unfairness there."

"Experience isn't valued, the process of children complaining about you, general lack of understanding the way teachers are perceived doesn't help retention, they think we're lazy."[83]

96. The Panel questioned the Minister for Education on this perception of being undervalued as a professional:

Deputy R.J. Ward

One of the themes of retention challenges that came out from our review was the theme of teachers feeling undervalued as a profession. What is the assessment of the current morale in the sector and what are you doing now to address it?

The Minister for Education:

So at a very high level, I understand the majority of the feeling of being undervalued, that is perceived from a public perception, maybe through parents, maybe through the general public, maybe through States Members. I get that impression, that is where they feel undervalued. The strength among the profession seems to be pretty strong, I think because they are all in the same boat, but I think that is maybe the perception rather than the actual rule. The reason why I say that is because the way the public have come out for teachers, particularly around the pay dispute, there was a lot of support in terms of a large majority of the public supporting and recognising their importance.[84]

97. The Panel recognises the importance of the Teachers' Survey and was informed by the Group Director for Education that one of the results from the previous iteration showed teachers felt valued by those within the profession.[85] In fact, 85% of those surveyed either strongly agreed or slightly agreed that they were respected as a professional by the people they worked with.[86] However, when asked whether they were respected as a professional by the wider community, this dropped to 75% that strongly or slightly agreed compared to 85% in 2015.[87]

98. When questioned as to why this may be the case, the Group Director for Education gave the following response:

Group Director, Education:

I think part of your question is what we do about it and I think we need to redouble ... all of us, I think, with great respect, I think elected Members of the States are part of the constituency, to help celebrate the great work teachers are doing, how well children are turning out, those successes. We need ... you know, there is a sense - and this is not picking on anyone - across media and social media to focus on the negative and the not good or not good enough stuff.[88]

99. The notion of culture was highlighted by the Minister for Education who explained that recognising the importance of education for future success was vital, not just for individuals going through the system but ultimately the economy as a whole.[89]

Key Finding 14

There was a theme arising from the focus groups that teachers felt undervalued for the work they do. There was an acknowledgment from the Minister for Education that whilst there was a perception of public negativity towards the profession there was also a significant amount of support for the profession as well (Section 6.5.3)

Recommendation 9

The Minister for Education should establish, alongside the current Teachers' Survey, a qualitative approach to listening to and gathering the views of teachers and lecturers in relation to the issues which affect them as professionals. This should seek to  develop specific improvements and outcomes that promote a genuine value in the profession and inspire confidence  that  genuine  professional  dialogue  exists  between  teachers,  lecturers  and leadership. [Section 6.5.3]

4. Retention Challenges – Extortionate' Scrutiny

100.  This issue of teachers being under extortionate scrutiny was highlighted during the focus groups and was described in the following ways throughout most of the groups:

• Many mentioned they feel as though they get treated like the children, not like professionals, due to an overall lack of trust. E.g. checking up on them all the time, watching in their lessons, all things on a daily basis knocking them down

• Senior leadership are under pressure because of the review, and they pass it on down to middle leaders, who then pass it onto teachers[90]

101.  Specific examples of teachers being placed under extortionate scrutiny included:

"I've got no problem with being accountable, that's our role, but there's being accountable and there's also being trusted to be doing our job well. When they have the Jersey review framework come in, which is now with 4 days' notice, they want us all to be ready which is completely understandable, but the pressure just piles down."

"We're constantly pressured for resources and meetings and tasks, so not only do you have the workload, but you're also under a huge amount of pressure. We have impact meetings, so you are constantly under scrutiny in terms of what are you doing, I've been a teacher for 12 years, they know I work hard, recently, I'd say the last 4 or 5 years it's data and scrutiny and what are you doing."

"I do feel that we get treated like the children sometimes, we don't get treated like professionals we get treated like the children. Checking us all the time, watching us in our lessons, learning walksall these things on a daily basis just knock you down."

"We have half-termly impact meetings where once I had to sit in-front of the executive head, the head, two of the governors and people from education and sit and explain why my results were like they were. I'll be honest, I'm not being arrogant, I wasn't too bothered, I sat there, I am who I am, but I know some heads of department felt under a huge amount of pressure and stress with that amount of people sitting there who are asking you questions."[91]

102. The NEU highlighted the level of scrutiny and accountability of staff are as high as ever

and explained that an unsustainable increase in workload was being compounded by the review process.[92] Primary school Head Teachers also explained that the pressure of expectations from schools, CYPES and parents do have a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of teachers.[93]

103. The Panel has regularly questioned the Minster for Education about the Jersey School

Review Framework (JSRF) and questioned why this level of scrutiny was necessary for schools:

The Minister for Education:

The review framework is extremely important for 2 reasons. One is so we can celebrate the amazing work our teachers do, and if we cannot celebrate the amazing work that our teachers do, how are we supposed to value them? How are we supposed to share that excellent practice that they are doing? Unless you are a parent like myself, and I see what is going on in that school, or if you are a member of the governing body, you do not necessarily see that first-hand. So, we need to be able to celebrate it. I need to be able to feed this back to my fellow colleagues and to the public and sharing that celebration of the good things they are doing and sharing that best practice among other schools, so they can all learn from that particular good practice. But there is always going to be room for improvement because we are all humans.[94]

104. Further discussions focussed on whether the theme of being treated like a child was

something that had been raised within the senior leadership of CYPES. The Group Director for Education explained that this was not a theme that had emerged throughout any of the daily meetings he had held with teachers, children and schools.[95] The Group Director went on to say:

Group Director, Education:

It does not feel that the phrase used of constantly trying to ... that is not the feel in our schools that I get. If you have had that feedback, then that is the perception of those people. I would not for a moment challenge that, but I do think I personally and professionally am delighted that the Jersey Government, the plan that has been endorsed by the States Chamber, is Putting Children First. We do genuinely have to know how well children are doing to know are we doing anything successfully. We have to monitor to know how well they are doing.[96]

105.  The Panel notes that there is a conflicting view between Departmental leadership and

the other evidence received on this matter.

Key Finding 15

There is a conflicting view between the focus groups, submissions and the departmental leadership in relation to the perception that staff are being placed under high levels of scrutiny which is in turn impacting teacher wellbeing (Section 6.5.4)

Recommendation 10

An urgent revaluation should be undertaken by the Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills; with outcomes reported to the Minister for Education of the aims of teacher performance scrutiny. This should include the consistency of application of current processes and its effectiveness in developing staff. A clear statement guiding the culture of performance scrutiny to one of collaborative support rather than top down judgement should be developed with classroom teachers and lecturers. Funding should also be allocated to enable professional development requirements.

5. Retention Challenges – Extreme Expectations

106.  The following key themes were raised throughout the focus groups in relation to

extreme expectations being placed upon teachers:

• Schools triply selected against, students unable to afford private education, and unable to get grades for Hautlieu.

• Students expected to get good grades, if they don't, then teachers are expected to tell them how much of a "disappointment they are" repeatedly

• Many children are lower than age expectant standards, however expected to get same grades as rest of the class

• Many EAL students joining each week, none of them speak English as their first language, lack of EAL assistants to help due to lack of funding[97]

107.  Specific examples of this perception of extreme expectations included:

"Accountability is increasingly an issue around retention, used to be working for the greater good, whereas now it's increasingly being you moved these children from point X to point Y, why?"

"I'm doing stuff not for the children, I'm doing it for people, again, it's back to the accountability thing, I'm doing it for people to come in and inspect us, many of who are people who have been brought in from the UK on contracts etc etc, and who are going to sort of going on some sort of carousel and go around and review us, so that's the first thing. Secondly, the obsession with the amount of assessment."

"The jobs changed, what's been expected to be completed and the hours aren't being given to complete that. It's either the teachers crack or the students don't get the education that they absolutely deserve. Less emphasis on metrics and measuring and more on moral, engagement and celebrating success."'[98]

108.  The Primary Head Teachers also highlighted expectations as having an effect on

teacher's wellbeing [99].

Key Finding 16

The focus groups highlighted extreme expectations as one of the main challenges to retention of teachers. This included views that the tasks expected to be undertaken by teachers could not be completed in the time available to do them. There was an acknowledgment from the Primary Head Teachers that expectations had an effect on teachers' wellbeing (Section 6.5.5)

6. Retention Challenges – Workload

109.  Unsurprisingly, the theme of excessive workload was highlighted throughout the focus

groups. This was also one of the key themes that arose through the industrial action that took place throughout 2019. The following key points were raised in relation to workload:

• Overall, far too much workload, resulting in a lack of work-life balance

• Unable to fit curriculum into the hours, many working weekends as well as evenings

• Lack of no contact time

• Having to report incidents unnecessary

• No time to plan lessons, I don't need to produce medium term plans, short term plans, long term plans because someone from the review team or professional partner is going to want to come into school and want to look at it

• The amount of assessments required for primary school perceived ridiculous

• For schools where they don't have a full-time cover teacher, staff who have to cover between 3 to 5 free periods have cover other people's lessons in these hours

• For higher education level students, they should be becoming independent learners, should be less contact time in the classroom, however lecturer is teaching for 28 hours a week in the classroom[100]

110.  Specific examples of the impact of workload on the retention of teachers included:

"Work-life balance, it's disastrous. I'm signed off with stress right now, There is not enough time to get enough sleep, there is not enough time to spend time with loved ones, you don't socialise during term time, you just let yourself run down, you don't go to the dentist because you don't have time."

"In the UK the unions have put a maximum of 18 hours contact time a week for higher education whereas here you might get 30 for less money and no pension."

"came back and then went to work in banking or finance because they came to schools here and got the reality check that they would be working more hours for less money than the job they got before they qualified. They wouldn't get the private healthcare that they got at the bank."

"It's  not  the  kids  that's  the  problem,  it's  the  workload,  endless,  endless workload, in two days after I got signed off there were 60 emails in my inbox, half of them were admin tasks which I would have to decipher what that email wanted me to do, have to read through a list of info to decide what part applied to me so I could do a follow up task."[101]

111. Workload was highlighted throughout most submissions as one of the key issues in

relation to recruitment and retention. In the submission from the NEU they explained that:

NEU:

Much of the workload is being thrust upon staff by senior management and headteachers with little regard to the actual effect and wellbeing of their staff and students. We receive daily comments and complaints that the workload is beyond what is normal and it is has very little effect on the actual teaching and learning which is supposed to be paramount. Work has been done to reduce workload, but teachers say they are yet to reap the benefits due to guidelines not being followed in schools.[102]

112. The NASUWT expressed the view that whilst teachers are dedicated public servants

committed to providing a high-quality learning environment for students, the findings of the Teachers' Survey on the wellbeing and workload of teachers were concerning and more needed to be done to give staff a working environment they need and deserve. [103] They did, however, go on to say that they have been encouraged by the steps the Department has taken to embed workload and wellbeing considerations into the development of policy.[104]

113. Primary school Head Teachers highlighted the following issue in relation to meeting

the ambitious goal of full inclusion:

There is not enough access to outside agencies or services offered by CYPES for us to be able to meet the ambitious goal of full inclusion as set out in the Department Inclusion Policy (May 2016) With better support around us, teachers could refer families to the "Right help, Right time" approach and be able to focus on children's learning within school.[105]

114. Another issue highlighted by the primary Head Teachers was the lack of business

support available in schools that meant staff were having to focus on other administrative tasks, as opposed to teaching:

We have limited administration support in school; Jersey schools do not have the Business Manager model that UK schools currently operate whereby administrative tasks such as HR, Health and Safety, GDPR information and other tasks are completed by administrators leaving school leaders and teachers to focus on their core purpose of Teaching and Learning. We need funding for Business Managers to ensure that the administrative tasks are not completed by teachers and school leaders. Thus allowing more professional time spent with children and improving outcomes.[106]

115. The Panel notes that the ongoing Target Operating Model (TOM) process is yet to be

completed. Until such time as the restructure of Tiers four, five and six (where it is likely that most administrative and business support posts will sit) is complete, there is uncertainty over how this additional support will be implemented.

116. During a public hearing in November 2019, the Panel asked the Minister for Education

for her assessment of what the average working week for a teacher was, to which the Minister responded suggesting roughly 60 hours.[107] The Panel followed this up during the public hearing on 24th January 2020 and questioned what could be done to address this issue:

Deputy R.J. Ward

You yourself stated, I believe in one of our hearings, that the average teaching week is 60 hours. You know, how is that appropriate and what can be done to address that now? It is an issue and it does take an enormous toll on staff.

The Minister for Education:

I think one of the issues, it goes back to the duplication, whether there is any duplication in the system and making sure we are teasing that out of the system and there is ... you know, reducing that duplication and having better technology, improved governance around the H.R. system. Getting the clarification and desirability around what autonomy means and the expectations of that autonomy is important as well, because that goes with the governance, but the workload side of things is also a discussion around how we become more flexible and collaborate more across schools and what that looks like and what that means. But fundamentally, a lot of that will cost money.[108]

117. The Panel notes the ongoing work of the Big Education Conversation' which has been

examining views from across the Island about the current and future education system. The Panel questioned what views from teachers had come out during this piece of work in relation to workload:

The Deputy of St. John :

You have the Big Education Conversation in train and you say that teachers are being honest with you. This is a big issue. What are the teachers saying to you?

The Minister for Education:

Well, not just workload. It is not the only thing that is said to me. It is because they do care so much about their profession and they do care about what they do, and it is like you say, they do it because it will not get done. Absolutely, but I think it is the emotional time and pressure that they feel when they are coming across the kinds of demands they are seeing in our schools with children who have got extreme behavioural issues, special educational needs, where we are not putting in the right investment where we should be.[109]

118. There is an acknowledgment across the board that workload is a serious issue for

teachers. It is encouraging that the Minister for Education plans to tackle this issue by putting resourcing and support in the right places.

Key Finding 17

There is a prevailing view that the current workload for teachers is unsustainable and is among one of the largest factors affecting the retention of staff. This is supported by the Minister for Education's view that the average working week for a teacher is 60 hours. There is a view that more pastoral and business support is required to free teachers up to teach which is supported by the Minister for Education. (Section 6.5.6)

Recommendation 11

The Minister for Education should identify clear actions to reduce workload through direct consultation with classroom teachers and lecturers via regular forums and focus groups. This should have a clear focus on wellbeing and identify long-term sustainable actions that support staff in their key role of teaching.

Recommendation 12

As a matter of urgency, the Minister for Education should identify funding to increase the business support for schools. This should be done in order to free up teachers from having to undertake tasks that are not directly related to the key role of teaching in the classroom.

7. Retention Challenges – Lack of Support

119.  A theme of a lack of support available to teachers was highlighted as a major challenge

to retention of staff throughout the focus groups. The key issues that contributed to this theme were highlighted as follows:

• Overall lack of support and welfare for staff. Especially lack of understanding from HR or PeopleHub, due to the staff not being specialised in support for Education staff

• Lack of support in difficult situations such as violence, abuse and emotion

• Mental health agencies being full, so have to be the pastoral care in meantime

• Overall lack of supply teachers

• No mechanisms in place to allow you to have a break from the system, losing talented professionals

• Problems can get passed from one school to another, e.g. an NQT starting at one school, failed first term, were going to fail second term, stopped the process because at that point they would have failed second term, so they resigned, they went somewhere else, were going to fail the process, they got passed on to another school

• Children's mental health is a huge thing at the moment, but what support is there for teachers who are dealing with this?

• Some bullying from other staff

• Lack of respect and support for Higher Education teachers e.g. no pension, no union rep[110]

120. Specific examples of the impact of a lack of support on the retention of teachers

included:

"I think that there are a lack of services on the Island and that contributes to what teachers have to do. CAMHS, social services, and children's services are very, very poor on the Island so we end up picking up a lot of that pastoral side that ordinarily would never come into a teacher's role."

"Supply teachers, we are the least valued of teachers, I've been told that I'm unbookable, not worth the training, not getting paid training, I feel undervalued as a teacher but even more as a supply teacher."

"We support each other but there's no support system."

"No support for higher education staff, not even a union rep. In the UK the unions have put a maximum of 18 hours contact time a week for higher education whereas here you might get 30 for less money and no pension."

"Possible support for housing. I don't know whether young teachers can afford the mortgage. It's a bit like the nurses too, with coming over from the UK, and they need help."

"When we lose a valuable support teacher they don't replace them, that puts more pressure on teachers, we have some fantastic supply teachers."[111]

121. As discussed in the previous section, primary school Head Teachers highlighted the

lack of access to outside agencies as a barrier to meeting the goal of full inclusion.[112] This links in with the view from the focus groups that schools are having to take on more pastoral roles, which would normally be undertaken by other services.

122. The NEU highlighted the following concern about the impact of a lack of support in its

submission:

We are hearing from more and more teachers who are suffering sleeping problems, anxiety, stress and mental health issues and how it is contributing to their decisions to quit the profession. The challenge for the government is to properly address these issues and ensure that education staff are nurtured and supported in their role but there is currently little sign of any concrete action in this respect.[113]

123. The primary Head Teachers gave the following view of the senior leadership

commitment to supporting staff, however, it was also noted that some of the issues were outside of the remit of the school to address:

There is substantial commitment from Senior Leaders in schools to support staff in whatever way we can. Schools have staff well-being plans and policies in place; we are flexible and consider the needs of the staff when making decisions. However, some issues outlined above are out of the remit of school leaders.[114]

124.  The Panel questioned the Minister for Education on what emotional support is available

to teachers in schools at present. The Group Director confirmed that the Department was being more proactive with its occupational health provider (AXA) and promoting the support it could offer to teachers.[115] The Panel notes that this service is available to teachers, but often used only once a problem has arisen. When asked about what could be done to create a system that allowed teachers to cope, it was acknowledged by the Minister for Education that the Inclusion Model needed to be sorted out.[116]

The Minister for Education:

I think there are a couple of things I will just add to this. So, one, I think we need to sort the inclusion model out, that is the first. We need the funding in order to invest because the less funding in terms of especially children who have got particular needs, they will need that extra support, maybe the one-to-ones or the 2-to-ones but making sure it is within the right setting and whatever that setting looks like, whether it is a mainstream school. This is a big conversation that we need to have around what that inclusion model looks like for a small Island and how we support those children properly. The other point would be I think we need to have a discussion around things like the P.P.A. (planning, preparation and assessment) time, the collaboration between teachers, how and what that looks like.[117]

125.  This also links back to the issues around workload and extreme expectations as

highlighted by the focus groups and submissions. This will also likely form part of the considerations arising from the Big Education Conversation', independent school funding review and Early Years Policy Development Board.

Key Finding 18

The focus groups and submissions highlighted a lack of support for teachers in relation to inclusion, administrative, business, social and emotional support for staff. There is recognition from the Minister for Education that more funding is required to develop an inclusion model for students and increase the opportunities for teachers to collaborate and support each other. (Section 6.5.7)

Recommendation 13

The Minister for Education should develop a new multi-agency inclusion model for schools as a matter of priority. This policy should target support for students to the most relevant agency in order to reduce the burden being placed on teaching staff in relation to addressing emotional support amongst students. (Section 6.5.7)

8. Retention Challenges – Lack of opportunities  

126.  A theme of a lack of opportunities available to teachers was highlighted as a challenge

to the retention of staff throughout the focus groups. The key issues that contributed to this theme were identified as follows:

• Overall lack of part time/job share opportunities

• Do senior management part time jobs, regardless of your skill set

• Discriminatory practice as part time arrangements are "totally and utterly reliant on your head's discretion"

• Many said that having a lack of sixth form in secondary schools had an impact on teachers – they could only progress so much in the system before the ceiling at GCSE. They also thought this impacted the students hugely in terms of higher education opportunity

• If you've got a supportive head teacher, you may be able to get an opportunity, however not all head teachers support it

• Lack of part time for some just wasn't an option due to not being able to afford to go part time

• Lack of training/retraining opportunities[118]

127.  Specific examples of the impact of a lack of opportunities on the retention of teachers

included:

"I'm stilted now because unless somebody else leaves, SLT, which nobody does leave, then I can't go anywhere else, so I'm stuck."

"For me I'm at the top of the scale now I can't go any further, my salary will not go up unless we get a pay rise every year, you know, like a cost of living pay rise. There's no progression from that point of view."

"We've lost good teachers over the fact that our school doesn't have a sixth form, people then move back as all schools in the UK have a sixth form and people don't understand that, so they move back very quickly or try and get into better schools."

"It's soon as you are a working mum and become part time you're sort of discounted until you come back full time. They don't want someone who's head of year who's head of faculty that's part-time, regardless of your skill set and the fact that you might be good at your role and you have the skill set to do that job they don't want you to do that job."

"It's hard to get off Island and go on courses, I've been here 12 years and I've only been on two UK courses, there's the cost obviously and opportunities, back in UK there's so much more chance, final one is chance for promotion, you're waiting for people to retire or die."[119]

128.  The issue of a lack of part time or job share opportunities was addressed in the

recruitment section of this report. The primary school Heads highlighted the following point about the career progression opportunities in the Island:

Opportunities for career progression in schools is limited to a narrow flight path in terms of class teaching/school leadership/ Deputy Head/Head teacher with additional specialist responsibilities being included in these roles rather than the opportunities for teachers to explore specific specialist leadership roles. For example,  in  the  UK  schools  are  funded  to  develop  the  role  of  "Special Educational  Needs  Coordinator"  which  has  career  progression  and  is  a leadership role in its own right - given specific training and qualifications and is often a non-class-based position working alongside the Head teacher. In the majority of schools in Jersey this role is one of many responsibilities held by the Deputy Head.[120]

129.  The submission from the Head Teacher of Victoria College also highlighted that limited

career  progression  and  the  difficulty  in  undertaking  professional  development (particularly in further education) were issues that affected retention.[121] The Teachers' Survey  2017/2018  found  that  53%  of  teachers  felt  the  access  to  Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in school was average, below average, or poor. A further 56% felt the quality of CPD was either average, below average, or poor.[122] The Minister for Education also agreed during a public hearing that further investment in staff CPD was required.[123]

130.  There is agreement from the submissions and the focus groups that the career

progression opportunities for teachers in Jersey are limited, as are the opportunities for professional development.  

Key Finding 19

The evidence received suggests that there is a narrow progression route for teachers with many having to take on additional responsibilities without the corresponding progression or promotion. There is also a view that, whilst continued professional development is available, there are limited opportunities for teachers to engage in it. (Section 6.5.8)

Recommendation 14

The  Minister  for  Education  should  review  the  current  offer  of  continued  professional development opportunities for teachers in the Island and explore the implications of increasing the funding available for teachers to undertake training both on and off-island. This should also ensure that classroom teachers are given allocated time in order to share best practice within and across establishments. (Section 6.5.8)

9. Retention Challenges – Behaviour

131.  A theme of student behaviour was highlighted through the focus groups as a challenge

to the retention of teachers. The key issues that contributed to this theme were identified as follows:

• Teachers constantly on alert for safeguarding, list of 20 students if they don't turn up at this time we have to ring someone

• Being  worried  about  suicidal  children,  being  careful  about  scissors, counting them

• Limited number of places in behaviour units, so children who previously weren't  in mainstream  school  are now  in  mainstream schools,  added pressure

• Students that have to be funded to be taught offsite

• Students assaulting teachers but asked to take them back

• Parents' behaviour

• No expelling in Jersey, perceived a big problem

• Escalation of confrontation and violence -very violent student in our school, to the point that he assaulted several members of staff, and the members of staff prosecuted, and he was found guilty of those crimes, and education want to place him back into our school[124]

132.  Specific examples of the impact of student behaviour on the retention of teachers

included:

"In the UK they have pupil referral units for those types of students whereas in Jersey they're closing those type of referral units down. The detrimental effects they have on other students learning and teacher wellbeing. I get verbal assaults every couple of weeks."

"We had a very violent student in our school, to the point that he assaulted several members of staff, and the members of staff prosecuted, and he was found guilty of those crimes, and education want to place him back into our school."

"We all have sanctions in place, but students don't learn."[125]

133.  Both the NEU and NASUWT highlighted student behaviour as a particular challenge

in relation to the recruitment and retention of teachers. The NEU explained that:

Another concern we have as a union is the amount of issues raised by teachers about  the  apathy  and  behaviour  of  the  pupils.  We  are  constant  fielding concerns  from  teachers  and  teaching  assistants  regarding  the  abhorrent behaviour and attitude of students. It is a continuous cycle as these students have to be educated but sometimes at the detriment of the mental wellbeing of staff and other students.[126]

134. Likewise, the NASUWT explained that the high proportion of teachers reporting poor

pupil behaviour and incidents of verbal abuse were particularly troubling.[127] In the Teachers' Survey 2017/2018, 68% of those surveyed rated the pupil behaviour as either very good or good.[128] However, 13% reported that pupil behaviour was either poor or very poor, which was an increase of 9% from the 2015 survey.[129] The statistics also showed that teachers in the States non-fee-paying schools were more likely to report lower levels of pupil behaviour than those in the States fee-paying and Non- provided schools.[130]

135. The Panel wrote to the Minister for Education and requested an overview of the

policies, procedures and support for staff relating to instances of verbal of physical abuse from students, parents and other staff. It was explained that a Positive Behaviour, Exclusions and Part-time Timetables Policy and Practice has been put in place, which is intended to:

• encourage a person-centred framework for supporting pupils who exhibit behaviours which could be described as challenging

• enable a framework to support pupils to develop appropriate and socially valid behaviours

• enable staff to discharge their duty of care towards pupils

• ensure the safety of pupils

• ensure the safety of staff (and others) and offer appropriate advice and guidance

• reduce risks associated with challenging behaviour[131]

136. The policy details the steps that should be taken when handling exclusions, part-time

timetables for disruptive or challenging students and the use of restrictive physical intervention (RPI) if required.[132] The Jersey Children First' (JCF) practice model has also been developed in order to promote a consistent approach to working with children and young people up to the age of 19 with emerging, additional or complex needs or disabilities.[133] The Panel questioned how the two policies were disseminated to staff working in schools and received the following information:

This Positive Behaviour, Exclusions & the Use of Part-time Timetables policy was reviewed and as with all policies subsequently shared with Head teachers. It would then be the responsibility of Head teachers to ensure all staff within their school, college or setting are fully appraised of all relevant policies. In the course of the last 12 months, JCF has consistently and frequently been promoted across the Children's' system using a range of professional forums for cascading (Head Teacher; designated safeguarding leads; Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCo); Planning and Review Meetings (PARMS), media / communication platforms, JCF newsletter; CYPES briefing; Education social media.[134]

137. Within this policy the best practice for safeguarding the welfare of staff is also outlined

as follows:

Safeguarding the Welfare of Staff

Schools and settings have a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees and the health and safety of others is safeguarded. As part of this employers must:

• assess the risks to employees and others (including the risk of reasonably foreseeable violence) and implement steps to reduce these risks

• provide adequate information, instruction, training and supervision

• monitor and review arrangements put in place to reduce the risks to ensure they are effective

• establish transparent processes to acknowledge the hazardous nature of any foreseeable incidents, and of any restrictive interventions

The duty includes risks arising from both violence and the use of RPI.[135]

138. The policy also defines what is meant by exclusion in schools. There are currently only

two forms of exclusion which include suspension and permanent exclusion. Suspension is defined as being for a specified number of days, and a Head can suspend a student for up to 5 days at a time and up to a maximum of 15 days in any one school term. Longer suspensions must obtain in writing the agreement of the Group Director for Education.[136] Permanent exclusion is explained to be extremely rare in Jersey and can only be obtained with agreement in writing from the Group Director for Education; and secondly, if he/she agrees, an agreement in writing from the governing body of the school (where applicable).[137]

139. In the policy it states that the current Law does not allow for extending a suspension

when there has been a serious physical assault on a pupil or member of staff. It is noted in the policy that at this stage a pastoral support plan involving the school, a representative from La Senté School and any other appropriate professionals would be convened by the school. This would enable the students' placement in the Short Stay School (SSS) for an agreed period of time before returning to the mainstream setting.[138]

140. Whilst the policy does outline the steps to be taken in the event of a suspension or

exclusion, it does point towards reintegrating the student to a mainstream setting which supports the views of the focus groups that students are being returned after potentially violent behaviour.

Key Finding 20

There is substantial evidence to suggest that poor and abusive pupil behaviour is becoming an increasing challenge to teacher retention. Whilst there are policies in place to mitigate and manage these issues, there is concern about the lack of a full exclusion policy in the Island. (Section 6.5.9)

Recommendation 15

In developing a new inclusion model for schools, the Minister for Education should give consideration to amending the exclusion policy to provide the option of full student expulsion from a school or college. Therefore, there should be a requirement for a specific provision, separate to the schools, with a focus on identifying and addressing the underlying issues with the long-term success of the young person at its heart. (Section 6.5.9)

10. Retention Challenges – Funding

141.  A theme of a lack of funding within the education system was highlighted as a major

challenge to retention of staff throughout the focus groups. The key issues that contributed to this theme were highlighted as follows:

• A strong opinion from the groups was that there is a lack of funding within education

• One respondent said she had no funding for any textbooks, so she had to make her own resources

• One mentioned that she felt that there is no financial support for the higher education sector, all the efforts are being put into giving grants to Jersey students to go overseas and there's no incentive for them to stay at the higher education that's in Jersey, they get more money if they go. And no attempt to meet UK or international standards, for contracts, so it's more competitive.

• Facilities were deemed as lacking, tired and run down, however the new St Martins school came across as very positive150

142.  Specific examples of the impact of funding on the retention of teachers included:

"80 of our children come in lower than age expected standards, with significant child protection issues, filling out all the child protection data daily, multi-agency meetings that I have to network, different curriculum for a child with autisms, the funding model comes into question here. The way that schools receive their funding is absolutely archaic, we should have funding that enables us to support those children who are the most vulnerable to get them where they need to be, there's no level playing field for our pupils."

"If it's going to be mainstream then it's got to come with some equitable funding to give that child a chance. This is the child's need we're talking about here."

"I've got 3 students in a GCSE class, none of which speak English really, the ELA assistant wasn't available today because there is a lack of funding."[139]

143.  Budget constraints were highlighted by the primary school Head Teachers as leading

to a resource shortage for teachers meaning they had to be more creative with what they had available to them, to support their teaching.[140]

144.  The Minister for Education commissioned an independent review of the school funding

model and appointed the company 2020 Delivery' to undertake this work. At the time of writing the report, the findings and recommendations of the review are yet to be published, however, the Minister for Education gave a commitment to publishing an action plan which detailed how the recommendations would be implemented:

Minister for Education:

We are due to have that report with us next month. Like I say, I want to bring that out with an action plan next to it, so everybody understands what is coming out of it. There is no point having a review and a report and then going: "Okay, Minister, that is great, what are you going to do about it?" Do have an idea, I want to get funding in place for September 2020 and particularly in some of these crucial areas in terms of special educational needs, record of needs, our educational psychologist side of things.[141]

145.  There is also a commitment from the Council of Ministers in the Government Plan to

act on the outcome and recommendations of the school funding review.[142] It is noted, however, that any identified need for increased school funds for the academic year 2020-2021 will be allocated from reserves or departmental underspends in the first instance.[143] This may be further impacted as a result of the response to the Covid-19 outbreak and the economic implications that creates.

Key Finding 21

A lack of funding for schools has been identified as having a major impact on retention due to the added pressure it places on teachers to undertake additional tasks. The Minister for Education has commissioned and independent review of school funding which was due to report during early 2020. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the report was not presented to the Council of Ministers until July 2020. (Section 6.5.10)

Recommendation 16

The  Minister  for  Education  should  ensure  that  any  recommendations  arising  from  the Independent School Funding Review are implemented as soon as practicable, ideally in time for January 2021. (Section 6.5.10)

6. Impact on students

146.  One key area examined during the focus groups was the impact of poor recruitment

and retention on the learning of students. The findings of the focus groups in respect of this issue were as follows:

• Impact of frequency of turnover of teachers impacting students learning and feeling of security

• Lack of behaviour management affecting others learning

• Hautlieu's lack of inclusivity "creaming off" the higher-grade students, the students left over feeling disheartened

• A few mentioned how there are many non-specialist teachers teaching GCSE subjects, impacting on the children's learning[144]

147.  Specific examples of the impact of poor teacher recruitment and retention on students

included:

"Retention itself affects the students, the amount of people going through the system, that's not good, quite recently I was covering a class that had had 3 different teachers within the last 3 months, a GCSE class. If you're coming up to your GCSE's and you've had 3 different teachers for English within the last 3 months you're not going to feel secure, you're not going to feel safe, and then panic sets in."

"My boys had a new teacher every 3 terms, even at parent evening some staff don't know their students."

"Turnover of staff is very frequent, retention isn't very good it's awful, people tend to not be as content, a lot more negatively which leads to the students, negativity because of the bureaucracy and hierarchy."[145]

148.  All  submissions  acknowledged  the  negative  impact  on  student's  attainment  and

behaviour of poor recruitment and retention of teachers. The NEU explained that:

The impact of poor recruitment and retention of staff on students is overall a poorer education system. Which would reduce standards, lowering aspirations which in turn will lower overall income and therefore their standard of living. Behaviour problems will also rise due to teaching standards being poorer.[146]

Key Finding 22

There is widespread agreement that poor recruitment and retention of teachers has a direct impact on students learning, behaviour and feeling of security. (Section 6.6)

7. Main improvements needed

149.  A key objective for the focus groups was to allow teachers to give their views on what

main improvements were needed in order to address some of the issues highlighted about recruitment and retention. The following key improvements were highlighted during the focus groups:

Main improvements for recruitment:

• More transparency i.e. cost of living

• Better pay/incentive to work/recruitment package

• Making the process quicker and more efficient

• Creating more opportunities i.e. part time contracts

Main improvements for retention mentioned:

• More sixth form options

• Reduced workload, especially admin work

• Better pay/incentive to work

• Less scrutiny

• More overall support e.g. EAL, behaviour, admin, TA's, supply, mental health

• More resources and funding

• Flexibility for contracts, less contact time

• Better behaviour management i.e. exclusion system[147]

150.  Participants in the focus groups were also asked what they felt would make recruitment

and retention of teachers in Jersey better. Of the 37 participants, 15 highlighted reduced  workload,  12  highlighted  being  paid  in  line  with  other professionals/qualification/cost of living and 10 highlighted more support for those facing abuse from students, teachers being trusted, valued and respected and more funding and resources.[148]

151.  The  submissions  received  highlighted  a  number  of  potential  improvements.

Submissions from the Head Teacher of Victoria College, the Principal of Highlands College and the primary school Head Teachers all agreed that better support from HR was required. The Principal of Highlands College provided several examples of HR improvements  that  could  be  brought  forward  to  address  the  issues,  including  a dedicated  HR  representative  for  the  College,  a  named  relocation  officer  in  the PeopleHub, a comprehensive, welcoming and detailed information pack for relocating staff and an accommodation list and support regarding temporary accommodation.[149]

152. The Head Teacher of Victoria College agreed that better support from HR was required

and suggested that more input from marketing would be beneficial in terms of producing recruitment literature to candidates and advertising roles across social media.[150] It was also suggested that subject areas have networks across the UK and other schools which could be used as a platform for advertising.[151]

153. Primary school Head Teachers considered that increased funding and investment in

human resources was critical:

Research has shown that investment in Human Capital improves organisational performance leading to a greater efficiency and better outcomes for all. We need funding to ensure that schools have the appropriate resources to deal effectively with the challenges in our communities today. The HR system needs to support us to be as effective as we can be in recruiting top class educators to and within Jersey.[152]

154. The NEU stated in their submission that action needed to be taken to address and improve the work-life balance for teachers.[153] The submission went on to say:

This includes reducing workload, supporting early career schoolteachers, promoting flexible working, tackling accountability pressures as well as supporting schools to deal with behaviour management.[154]

155. The Minister for Education explained that fixing the cost of living issue would help ease

some of the pressures on recruitment and retention, however, it was acknowledged that this was not something that could be fixed overnight.[155]

8. Conclusions and recommendations from the focus groups

148.  The overall conclusions and recommendations arising from the focus groups

were as follows:

• Overall, respondents felt that the recruitment of teachers in Jersey is poor due to:

• A lack of incentive to live here, (especially have very high housing costs), or work in the profession

• The difficult and slow TalentLink recruitment process

• A lack of career opportunities

• Non-transferable qualifications

• A focus on off island (UK), rather than on island recruitment

• However, most felt that Jersey is a nice, safe and friendly place to live

• The issues with teacher retention were massive, with many feeling at crisis point. Perceptions included:

• Feeling undervalued and disrespected

• Under constant scrutiny

• Excessive workload, 60 + hours per week

• A lack of support

• A lack of career opportunities

• Worsening student behaviour

• A lack of funding for even basic resources

• The  respondents  felt  that  all  of  these  factors  impacted  students  learning  and development

• The main improvements for recruitment included more transparency, better incentives and making the process more efficient

• The  main  improvements  for  retention  included  reducing  the  work  load  (allowing teachers to focus on teaching), providing better support, less scrutiny, more funding, flexibility on contracts, more part time/job share opportunities, better student behaviour management (exclusion and sanctions), more sixth form options, (e.g. Co-ed at Les Quennevais), reviewing the 14-year-old selective approach

149.  The Panel would like to thank all of the participants for taking the time to engage

with this process and 4insight for facilitating and analysing the information.

7. Conclusion

The Panel recognises the dedication and hard work of teachers and lecturers in Jersey and would like to place on record its thanks to all those who work to educate the Island's children and young people. It would also like to place on record its thanks to all those who engaged in this review process, especially those who participated in the focus groups.

Throughout this review the Panel has identified a number of substantial challenges and concerns that affect recruitment and retention of teachers and lecturers in Jersey. There is a fundamental belief from the evidence received that children and young people must be taught by valued and qualified professionals who have genuine access to ongoing professional development. There is also a view that in order to achieve this there must be greater recognition of the value of the profession to Jersey and significant increases in funding to support it. It will also require a re-examination of the culture in our education system that appears to have created barriers to the fundamental concept that teachers and lecturers are there to provide an inspirational education to children and young people.

The Panel's recommendations have been formulated in order to help address these issues in a constructive manner and it will continue to hold Ministers and Government Officials to account for their delivery.

8. Appendix One

1. Panel Membership

Deputy Rob Ward , Chair

Deputy Rowland Huelin, Vice-Chair

Deputy Trevor Pointon

Deputy Louise Doublet ( Deputy Doublet joined the Panel on 4th February 2020 and was therefore not involved in the initial stages of the review)

Deputy Mike Higgins ( Deputy Higgins joined the Panel on 4th February 2020 and was therefore not involved in the initial stages of the review)

2. Terms of Reference

1. To examine the recruitment and retention figures for teaching staff over the past 5 years including, but not limited to:
   1. The number of staff that have left the profession;
   2. The number of staff that have retired and are due to retire in the next 5 years;
   3. The number of staff that have been recruited through any recruitment initiatives (i.e. Jersey Teacher Training Programme);
   4. The number of staff that have engaged in exit interviews.
2. To identify all Government of Jersey policies relating to the recruitment and retention of teaching staff and assess their effectiveness.
3. To gather and examine the views of stakeholders regarding the key challenges faced in recruiting and retaining teachers.

3. Public Hearings

4. Evidence Considered

The Panel received the following submissions during the review:

• NASUWT

• NEU

• Highlands College

• Victoria College

• Primary Head Teachers

9. APPENDIX 2: 4insight Report

Scrutiny Panel

Teacher Recruitment and Retention

Prepared for The Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel, Andrew Harris Prepared by Beatrice Speck & Dorothy Parker

19.11.19

Presentation outline

Research Aim and Objectives Project Scope and Sample Methodology

Demographics Detailed Results

Conclusions & Recommendations

Appendix

Research Aim and Objectives

The working or researz ch not, aprojecs well t aimas was to ideto entifystablish some the cof theurre main issues nt recruitment that teaandche reters beliention ve policy affecfor t rectearuitmechers and nt and identifretention. y whetheThisr this will is supplement the quantitative data the Panel collects.

During a recent public hearing with the Minister for Education, the Panel was informed that 154 teachers had handed in their notices as of 31st May 2019. Whilst there are probably a myriad of reasons, such as long hours, pressure to achieve results, and actual moves (rather than leaving teaching per see), this in itself required further investigation.

Specific objectives were to explore and identify:

• The main successes in relation to teacher recruitment and retention

• The motivations that keep teachers working within the profession

• The main challenges for teachers that affect recruitment and retention

• What support is in place to deal with these challenges

• What is required to better deal with these challenges

• What support/training/structures could be implemented to deal with the challenges

• What is the perceived impact of poor recruitment and retention of staff on students

Outcome: provide insights and key information to support Scrutiny's review in Jersey

Project scope and sample

Scope:

Jersey

Sample:

The target sample was teachers on the Island; current teachers, those who have handed in their notice and teachers who have recently left the profession for various reasons or moved.

Non-fee paying schools as well as fee paying schools were addressed, as their satisfaction scores are different across these 2 types of school. Non- fee paying schools report higher teacher numbers being unsatisfied with their role, (21% v 14%). Both primary school and secondary school teachers were included.

Invitations to participate in this independent research were developed together, sending potential respondents to 4insight and sent by various methods, also being GDPR compliant;

• by 4insight to their panel of over 2,800 islanders

• promotion in collaboration with Education

• promotion by the Scrutiny Panel on social and traditional media

When respondents contacted 4insight they were screened to an agreed screener questionnaire, which aimed to include a mix of the teacher demographics, such as primary v secondary, fee paying v non-fee paying, school, time in service, gender, current v planning to leave v recent (within last 5 years) etc. The screening criteria was discussed at the kick off briefing meeting, along with the actual target structure for each group. The screener questionnaire was designed by 4insight as well as reviewed and agreed with yourselves, prior to use.

Methodology – focus groups

To meet the aim and objectives of this research, independent qualitative research in the form of focus groups was undertaken. This enabled us to ensure that we truly achieved the level of depth and understanding needed from BOTH the rational and emotional perspectives of why there may be issues with teacher recruitment and retention.

6 focus groups were conducted to explore views and reasonings across the varied teacher demographics (fee and non-fee paying schools, subjects taught, primary and secondary schools), plus plans to stay or leave or recently left.

Each focus group was conducted with 6-9 qualifying teachers with a good mix of demographics to stimulate challenge and discussion, whilst still being able to explore why they think as they do. We discussed at the kick off meeting how you wanted these 6 groups composed and it was decided that there was value in having some homologous groups and some mixed;

1 group each for only primary, only secondary, only recent leavers

3 groups with a mix of all types.

The qualitative focus groups were professionally facilitated/moderated by 4insight's Director and held at our professional observation facilities to allow key team members to view live, however not bias responses by being present in the sessions. The groups were conducted to an agreed topic/discussion guide prepared by 4insight then reviewed and agreed prior to use by yourselves. Projective and enabling techniques were utilised to explore their perceptions at an emotional and unconscious level on an individual, (self completion basis) plus open discussion level, whether reaching consensus or not.

Each group lasted 100-120 minutes although planned at 9- minutes. All groups were digitally recorded and professionally analysed.

Demographics: Age, Gender, Employment Status, Place of Birth

Gender

10

Employment

23

27

10 Male Female

27 Age 1 2 1

Full time Part-time Self employed Retired Unemployed employement employment

6

3

n=37 1

19-30 31-50 51-65 65+

Demographics: Schools Where Teacher at, Type of Teacher, Current Teachers/ Former Teachers

Schools Type of Teacher

7

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1