‘Excessive workload' means 44% of teachers work extra day every week, says union
Workload levels mean more than two-fifths of teachers are working the equivalent of an extra day each week – with more than one in 10 working an additional two days without pay, research has found.
A survey by the EIS teaching union found 44.3% of teachers who took part said they work an additional seven unpaid hours in a typical week.
Meanwhile 11.5% of teachers said they work an extra 15 hours or more per week – the equivalent of two more days.
The results are revealed in a survey the union carries out every two years which looks at workload, health and wellbeing issues.
The findings were made public ahead of the union's annual general meeting later this week – where it will open a consultative ballot for industrial action over the Scottish Government's 'failure' to meet a commitment to reduce time spent in classes for teachers.
EIS general secretary Andrea Bradley said: 'The results of the EIS national survey paint a stark picture on the matter of teacher workload.
'It is a story of persistent, excessive workload demands being placed on teachers at all grades and at all stages of their careers.
'This has serious health, safety and wellbeing implications for teachers, and is contributing to a worrying upward trend in stress-related illness throughout the teaching profession.'
A total of 10,789 teachers from across Scotland took part in the survey – with only 17.5% saying they are either 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with their workload levels.
Two-thirds (66.9%) reported being either 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied' with workload levels generally.
When looking at the preparation and marking teachers have to do for classes, almost three-quarters (73%) said they are rarely or never able to do this within the working week.
And 64% said they can never complete all the tasks assigned to them within their working week.
Ms Bradley said tackling 'excessive teacher workload' is one of the key aims of the union's Stand Up for Quality Education campaign.
She vowed to press both local councils, who employ teachers, and the Scottish Government on the 'vital issue'.
It comes after the last SNP Holyrood election manifesto pledged to cut the time teachers spend in the classroom by 1.5 hours a week 'to give them the time they need to lift standards'.
But Ms Bradley said: 'Four years on from that pledge being made, there has been absolutely no tangible progress towards delivering it, and no proposals as to how it will be delivered.
'It is the failure to deliver on this vital promise on class contact time that will lead to the EIS opening a consultative industrial action ballot over workload at our annual general meeting later this week.'
The Scottish Government said ministers will continue to work with unions and local government body Cosla to 'agree our approach to delivering a reduction in class contact time'.
A spokesperson added: 'This is also why we are providing local authorities with an additional £186.5 million to restore teacher numbers, alongside an additional £29 million to support the recruitment and retention of the ASN (additional support needs) workforce.
'This funding has been provided on the clear agreement that meaningful progress is made on reducing teacher class contact time.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Just work in a cupboard, says SNP minister in row over soaring business rates
Businesses can avoid paying high rates by setting up in cupboards, the Deputy First Minister has said. Kate Forbes said the most profitable firms are 'smaller ones' which can operate from a 'cupboard, where there are no rates'. Her suggestion came during a Scottish parliament debate on whether the 'current rates regime' prevents companies from 'scaling up'. Ms Forbes admitted the rates system is 'based on an older version of the economy' which did not apply in 'our new, tech-driven environment'. Last night Scottish Tory economy spokesman Murdo Fraser said: 'Kate Forbes' view of how businesses work is so detached from reality that she might as well have claimed Narnia is at the back of the cupboard. 'She must know it's nonsense to suggest that manufacturing, hospitality, retail or a host of other businesses could operate in this way. 'And it's downright insulting to downplay the cost of rates, when the SNP withheld relief available elsewhere in the UK, putting Scottish firms at a huge disadvantage.' At Holyrood, Scottish Tory MSP Liam Kerr asked Ms Forbes: 'Does the Government think that the way in which the current rates regime is structured militates against small businesses scaling up?' She replied that it did not because of the small business bonus scheme which she said 'remains the most generous across the United Kingdom'. Ms Forbes, who is also Economy Secretary, said the 'rates system often does not take into account the fact that some of the most profitable businesses are the smaller ones'. She said: 'A start-up can be launched from a cupboard, where there are no rates, while a large and perhaps less profitable business has to pay them.' Speaking in the Holyrood debating chamber on Wednesday, Ms Forbes said the rates system is 'based on an older version of the economy, in which the size of properties was linked to profitability, and that is just not the case in our new, tech-driven environment'. Commenting last night, Glasgow-based businessman Donald MacLeod said: 'This is very disappointing – the SNP appears to have given up on business. 'Businesses in the hospitality sector are falling by the wayside and finding it really tough – and there's no support there. 'For some, a cupboard might be ok – if you were a one-person business – but clearly it doesn't work for nightclubs, bars and restaurants. 'We need to be incentivising and supporting businesses – not telling them to set up a in a cupboard. 'This is mind-boggling stupidity from Kate Forbes - it is utterly absurd. 'Businesses are on their knees - and we have a government which is economically illiterate.' It came as Ms Forbes criticised about the impact of the SNP's policies after questioning why there is an 'obsession' with income tax rates in Scotland. Following a keynote speech at economic think tank Adam Smith House, she said: 'In Scotland there seems to be an obsession with income tax as though it's the only tax businesses and individuals have to grapple with.' Scotland is the only part of Britain not cutting business rates for shops this year. The Welsh Government announced it will provide 40 per cent relief for all firms in the retail, hospitality and leisure industries. It came after Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a 40 per cent relief package for the same sectors in England as part of her Budget. But the SNP government Budget unveiled in December means retailers in Scotland businesses are receiving less support than those in other parts of Britain this year. Businesses are also struggling with the UK Government's hike in National Insurance employers' contributions, which began in April. It emerged in January that companies based in Scotland will pay £55million more tax than those in England because SNP ministers have not delivered on a promise to give them a level playing field. SNP ministers confirmed that firms based in larger premises in Scotland will pay £54.7million more in business rates than those in England in the year beginning in April. Shops will pay £9.1million more than those south of the Border, while offices will pay an additional £6.4million and hotels face an extra £2.5million bill. In its 2021 manifesto, the SNP promised to ensure that 'the largest businesses pay the same combined poundage in Scotland as in England'.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reform's non-stop psychodrama threatens to drive voters away
Nigel Farage was given just 10 minutes' warning before Zia Yusuf unleashed an earthquake that could shatter Reform UK's electoral fortunes. The party leader said that after a telephone conversation on Wednesday morning, he thought Mr Yusuf had 'had enough' of politics. But it was on Thursday evening that Reform's chairman resigned in the latest in a series of internal disputes that has begun to distract from the party's electoral success. As voters were trickling out of polling booths in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election in Scotland, where Reform's position looks strong, Mr Yusuf announced he no longer thought working for the party was a 'good use of his time'. The barely veiled implication was that he does not believe Mr Farage should be prime minister – a stunning admission from a man who has made putting Reform in Downing Street his single goal since the days after last year's general election. Mr Yusuf, a successful entrepreneur and millionaire, was hired to professionalise the party's candidate selection, fundraising and day-to-day operations. Under his leadership, Reform has moved into a plush new Westminster headquarters, won a parliamentary by-election and majorities on 10 English councils, and placed itself in the crosshairs of Sir Keir Starmer. There was also an almighty row with Rupert Lowe, one of the five MPs Reform voted in at the 2024 election, who fell out with Mr Yusuf and was reported to the parliamentary authorities and police for bullying, which he denies. Mr Farage backed his chairman and suspended the whip from Mr Lowe in March, and both sides have since sued each other. It proved a bitter row, but one that Mr Yusuf survived. As recently as Monday, Mr Farage told The Telegraph that while the 38-year-old businessman was 'new to the game', he would 'be around for many, many years to come', and would play a 'significant role in shaping the future of the country'. The fact that he resigned four days later is a testament to the work Reform still needs to do to become a general election-winning machine. Reform sources say there has been a dispute in the party for some time over what exactly Mr Yusuf should do in his role as chairman. As a recent graduate of Britain's business world, he was the obvious choice to lead 'UK Doge', Reform's Elon Musk-inspired efficiency drive in the councils it now runs. But that shift, from running Reform to the 'Doge' role, has led to the rise of another figure, 24-year-old Aaron Lobo, who served as Mr Farage's producer at GB News and has recently become Reform's operations manager. The divide between the party's political team and Mr Yusuf's more managerial role was laid bare on Wednesday at Prime Minister's Questions, when Sarah Pochin, the newest Reform MP, asked Sir Keir whether he would ban the burka. Mr Yusuf, who is a Muslim, said he only learnt about the question when he saw it online. He later added he thought it was 'dumb' for a party to ask the Government to endorse policies it did not support. But it later emerged that other party figures were more open to banning the burka than he expected. Lee Anderson, the chief whip, said he agreed they should be outlawed, adding: 'No one should be allowed to hide their identity in public.' Mr Farage said the public 'do deserve a debate' about banning religious face coverings. He added, in an interview with GB News, that he had known about the question in advance. The row was remarkable not just for its contents – which led to accusations of racism from Labour – but because it played out in public. If Mr Yusuf was in charge of his party, why did he not know what was going on? And why would he respond to his colleagues online, rather than in the office? Sources close to the party say that Mr Yusuf has become increasingly uncomfortable with the level of scrutiny his dispute with Mr Lowe brought, and had complained that every time he went on a national broadcast channel, he received a deluge of racist abuse online. On Thursday night, Mr Farage blamed 'alt-Right' abuse of Mr Yusuf online and claimed criticism of him on X had begun to upset him in recent weeks. The Telegraph understands he also found it difficult to bridge the gap between the party's more aggressive wing, once led by Mr Lowe, and attempts to become more moderate to attract disaffected Conservative voters. Unfortunately for Mr Farage, the incident is only the latest in a series of high-profile rows between the party leader and his senior colleagues. In his remarkable and lengthy political career, the veteran Brexiteer has fallen out with Ukip colleagues Mark Reckless, Douglas Carswell, Godfrey Bloom and Suzanne Evans, and the Reform deputy leader Ben Habib. Reform already has an uphill battle in convincing voters that it is a credible political force before the next general election. Mr Farage has done an impressive job in building a party with five MPs into a project with a seven-point poll lead over Labour that has all but killed off the Conservatives. The fact there are now Reform-run councils across the country is a boon. However, turning Reform's momentum in opposition into the sense it is a party of government will be much harder, and endless rows and resignations will not give voters any confidence on that front. Plus, if the row over the burka ban is genuinely the reason for Mr Yusuf's resignation, there are also policy questions to be asked. Chiefly, how much does Mr Farage want to rely on migration and race issues for votes? Will he tolerate his party's MPs criticising core beliefs of Muslims in the Commons chamber? Mr Farage, aided by Mr Yusuf, has come to think about his party as more of a political business than a party in the traditional Westminster mould. In the early-stage startup world, rows between executives over the direction of their projects are not uncommon – as Mr Yusuf has no doubt experienced. But stopping the in-fighting and resignations is now a business-critical issue. Reform's psychodrama risks driving voters back to Labour and the Conservatives, at a time when it must maintain its position in the polls or fizzle out.
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Eradicating child poverty must become Labour's central mission
It is much more than a flip rhetorical cliche to say that if a nation thinks that fighting child poverty is costly, then it should try the alternative. It really should not be a matter of great controversy. The broadly warm welcome given to the government's expansion of the free school meals programme has been marred only by some noisy mumblings about how the policy will be funded. Of course, any item of public spending must be accounted for – but in the case of this and similar measures to alleviate child poverty, both sides of the ledger should be taken into account. Experience in Scotland, Wales and London – where free and nutritious meals are already available more widely – suggests that pupils perform better on a full stomach; something that surely accords with common sense. Academic studies go further, linking higher educational achievements with higher productivity and thus better living standards for those lifted out of poverty – with an obvious dividend for the nation as a whole. Official support for children, including the new breakfast clubs, a wider availability of free school meals, childcare, access to libraries, affordable housing and of course their education itself, should be treated less as 'current' spending and more like an investment. These are the kind of arguments The Independent has long put forward, as part of an award-winning campaign, and are compatible with fiscal sustainability. In essence, though it is not meant to be mercenary, money spent on rearing a healthier, more literate, more numerate and more intellectually able generation is, in the long run, as valid an investment as, say, building a new tramway or bolstering the national grid. 'Human capital' is, ironically, more precious than ever in a world where artificial intelligence will take over so many of the tasks currently undertaken by human beings. For people to enjoy socially useful and economically viable lives in the future, they will need to be smarter than the machines that will surround them. Soon enough, chancellor Rachel Reeves will be able to go further and faster, as the current ministerial catchphrase goes, in the Labour government's newfound mission to reduce child poverty. After years when the party seemed to be undeclared disciples of the austerity school of economics, Labour's conscience, albeit prompted by some shocking electoral setbacks, has been awoken. Eradicating child poverty by 2020 was the noble objective set by Tony Blair early in the last Labour government, enshrined in law during the last days of Gordon Brown's administration, revived in Jeremy Corbyn's time, but frankly neglected, beyond some necessary lip service, in more recent years. Now, it has rightly become a priority, and one that has lodged itself high on the long list of social challenges facing the chancellor. It now seems inevitable that the two-cap limit on child benefit, imposed by a Tory chancellor almost a decade ago, will be lifted, sooner or later, and perhaps 300,000 children in larger families lifted out of poverty immediately. That it will be partly under populist pressure from Nigel Farage does not make it a bad idea. Extending child benefit, like school meals, is not a total cure for child poverty. Where the Tories had a point as they downgraded the poverty targets in the past (which, to be clear, was a mistake) was when they stressed the importance of a healthy economy creating well-paid jobs. Child poverty is linked to general levels of poverty, obviously, and the creation of wealth still counts as the essential basis for a fairer society – and human capital is part of that. Even with these latest measures, continuing care will need to be taken to make sure the free school meals are nutritious and promote good physical and mental health. Other policy areas also need to be attended to. No level of child benefit or childcare will entirely compensate for being brought up in a cramped, overcrowded, mouldy, cold home. Other policies will thus have to contribute to giving every British child the best opportunities in life. In that context, the government's child poverty task force might consider how the SureStart centres could be restored. Arguably the most serious misjudgement of the coalition government of 2010 to 2014 was to scrap them. In any case, without much in the way of conscious effort, indeed almost by accident, Sir Keir Starmer's government has found itself endowed with a new, invigorating mission to pursue. For all the problems, disappointments, gaffes and missteps in their first year out of the wilderness, the Labour Party has rediscovered its raison d'etre.
