42 E D U C AT I O N C A N A D A I C A N A D I A N E D U C A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N

IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING IS A RESPONSIBILITY SHARED BY POLICYmakers, administrators, teachers and their federations, parents, students them-selves, as well as members of the wider community. While each of these groupshas important contributions to make, what teachers do mediates the effects ofalmost all such contributions. And what teachers do depends on their motiva-tions, capacities, and the conditions under which they work.

Furthermore, although most contemporary efforts to improve student learn-ing have targeted teachers’ motivations (e.g., increasing competition amongschools for students) and capacities (e.g., the teaching standards movement),inadequate working conditions seriously undermine any potential these effortsmay have. In Ontario, for example, the current government’s goal of increasingthe proportion of elementary students achieving at least at level three on EQAOtests of literacy and math is extremely unlikely to be met in the absence of seri-ous attention to the adequacy of teacher working conditions. As one policymaker has recently claimed, “teachers’ working conditions are students’ learningconditions”.1

To advance our understanding of the issues, the Elementary Teachers’ Feder-ation of Ontario commissioned one of the authors (Ken Leithwood) to do ananalytical review of the literature on teachers’ working conditions. This resultedin the publication, Teacher Working Conditions That Matter: Evidence for Change.2

The framework for this report is based on the premises that teachers’ feelingsand knowledge (“internal states”) are the immediate “causes” of what teachersdo and that many of these internal states are significantly influenced by the circumstances in which they work. Some working conditions will have quitepositive effects on one or more of these internal states, whereas some will havenegative effects. Teachers’ performance will be influenced accordingly. Evidencepoints to the influence on teachers’ work and, in some cases, also on studentlearning, of eight specific internal states:

•Individual sense of professional efficacy;•Collective sense of professional efficacy; •Organizational commitment; •Job satisfaction; •Stress and burnout;•Morale; •Engagement or disengagement (from the school and/or

profession); and •Pedagogical content knowledge.

The analysis identifies working conditions which evidencesuggests have a significant influence on each of these inter-nal states.

OVERVIEW

The analysis is presented in four sections. Section 1 pro-vides a detailed rationale along with the framework andmethods used. Section 2 clarifies how each of the eightteacher internal states has been defined and conceptual-ized for purposes of research, reports evidence about itseffects on teachers’ performance and student learning, andsummarizes those working conditions that influence iteither positively or negatively. Section 3 provides a synthe-sis of working conditions identified in Section 2, supple-mented with evidence from largely Canadian working con-ditions studies sponsored by teacher unions or federations.The final section offers a number of recommendations forusing the improvement of teacher working conditions as apowerful strategy for enhancing the learning of students.

TEACHER WORKING CONDITIONS THAT MATTERTEACHER WORKING CONDITIONS THAT MATTERKEN LEITHWOOD AND PAT MCADIE

CLASSROOM-LEVEL WORKING CONDITIONS

At the classroom level, evidence suggests that both the vol-ume and complexity of teachers’ workloads have impor-tant consequences for them.

Workload volume. During the school year, teacherswork an average of 50 to 53 hours per week performing along list of tasks. About half of that time is devoted to actu-al classroom instruction. Teachers’ overall attitude aboutthe volume of their work depends on their perceptions offive more specific features of their environments. Commit-ments to their school and morale are eroded and feelingsof stress increased when teachers perceive their workloadto be unfair in comparison with the work of other teachersin their own school or across the district; when the overallnumber of pupils for which they are responsible becomesexcessive; when the size of their classes is perceived tomake unreasonable demands on the time required forpreparation and marking and seriously erodes the oppor-tunities for providing differentiated instruction for theirstudents. Excessive paper work and the burden of suchnon-teaching demands as hall monitoring, bus duty andlunchroom supervision also add to teachers’ feelings ofstress, reduce their morale and commitment to the school,and increase the likelihood of moving to another school oranother line of work.

Workload complexity. The complexity of their work, asteachers’ perceive it, influences the same internal states asdoes workload volume. Teachers’ perceptions of an exces-sively complex teaching assignment also erode their senseof job satisfaction. Such perceptions arise when teachers

C A N A D I A N E D U C A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N I E D U C AT I O N C A N A D A 43

are required to teach in areas for which they are not certi-fied or are otherwise ill prepared and when their studentsare uncooperative and achieve relatively poorly. They per-ceive complexity as increasingly manageable, however,when they are given a significant degree of autonomy overclassroom decisions; this allows them to do the job the bestway they know how. An atmosphere throughout the schoolthat encourages learning improves the manageability ofworkload complexity, as does the availability of instruction-al resources.

SCHOOL–LEVEL WORKING CONDITIONS

Our study identified four sets of working conditions thathave a significant influence on teachers’ internal states:school cultures, structures, relations with the community.and operating procedures.

School cultures. School culture significantly affectsseven of the eight internal states (all but pedagogical con-tent knowledge). School cultures that make increasinglypositive contributions to the affective lives of teachers arethose in which: the goals for teachers’ work are clear,explicit and shared; there is little conflict in teachers’ mindsabout what they are expected to do; the atmosphere in theschool is generally positive and friendly; student disciplineis under control; and collaboration among teachers isencouraged. Teachers also thrive when the cultures of theirschools value and support their safety and the safety oftheir students and when there are high expectations forstudents and a strong academic “press” evident to studentsand teachers across the school. School cultures that helpteachers to find their work meaningful (e.g., clear andmorally inspiring goals) also have a positive influence onteachers’ affective dispositions.

School structures. The primary purpose for schoolstructures is to make possible the development and main-tenance of cultures that support the work of teachers andthe learning of students. Some of the structures for whichwe gathered evidence are not easily altered, for example,school size and location. While our review found that theinternal states and work of teachers are most likely to beenhanced in relatively small schools located in suburbanrather than urban locations, little can be done about schoolsize or location – although “schools-within-schools” is cur-rently a popular response to large school structures.

All other structural attributes of schools associated withteachers’ internal states are potentially quite malleable,however, and can easily outweigh the negative effects oflarger school sizes and urban locations. Positive contribu-tions to teachers’ internal states and overt practices are

EN BREF Un examen analytique intitulé Teacher Working Conditions ThatMatter: Evidence for Change, commandé par la Fédération des enseignanteset des enseignants de l’élémentaire de l’Ontario, porte sur la documentationdes conditions de travail des enseignants. Les prémisses sont que les senti-ments et les connaissances des enseignants sont les causes immédiates dece qu’ils font et qu’un grand nombre de ces états internes sont considérable-ment influencés par le contexte de travail : conditions de travail en classe,conditions de travail de l’école, leadership de la direction et conditions de tra-vail du conseil scolaire. L’analyse indique les conditions précises qui sem-blent exercer une influence sur chacun des huit états internes : sentimentindividuel et collectif d’efficacité professionnelle, engagement organisation-nel, satisfaction au travail, stress et épuisement, moral, engagement auprèsde l’école et de la profession, connaissance des contenus pédagogiques.

associated with structures that provide opportunities tocollaborate with one another (e.g., common planningtimes), work in small teams, prepare adequately for theirclassroom instruction, access ongoing professional devel-opment, and participate in school-level decisions. Physicalfacilities that permit teachers to use the types of instructionthey judge to be most effective increase their engagementin their schools and their desire to remain in the profession;this is also the case when the school has well-developedand stable programs (the meaning of “integrity”) on whichto build when new challenges present themselves.

Community relations. A third set of school-level condi-tions – community relations – influences both job satisfac-tion and the probability of remaining in the school and pro-fession. Positive contributions to these states occur whenthe reputation of the school in the local community is pos-itive and when the efforts and directions of the schoolenjoy the support of parents and the wider community.

School operating procedures. Finally, three workingconditions at the school level, as a group, influence teach-ers’ sense of individual and collective efficacy, as well as jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment: the quality of

communication in the school; how well the school’s plansfor improvement match teachers’ views of what theschool’s priorities should be; and regular feedback to schoolworking groups about the focus and quality of theirprogress.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP

We examined the influence of principals’ behaviour onteachers’ working conditions separately from other “schoolconditions” because this factor is so clearly distinct and itseffects so alterable and significant. Principal leadership actsas a catalyst for many other school conditions. For example,collaborative cultures and the structures that support themare very hard to develop and sustain in the absence of sup-portive leadership from school administrators.

The review identified a substantial list of leadershippractices associated, as a whole, with all eight of the teach-ers’ internal states. These practices are aimed at direction-setting, developing people, redesigning the organization,and managing the instructional program.

Direction setting. Two direction-setting practices ofprincipals significantly influence teachers’ stress, individualsense of efficacy and organizational commitment. One ofthese practices, helping the staff develop an inspiring andshared sense of purpose, enhances teachers’ work. Theother, holding (and expressing) unreasonable expectations,has quite negative effects.

Developing people. These practices include being colle-gial, considerate and supportive; listening to teachers’ideas; and generally looking out for teachers’ welfare.Buffering teachers from distractions to their instructionalwork, acknowledging and rewarding good work, and pro-viding feedback to teachers about their work also con-tribute to positive working conditions. Principals also assistthe work of teachers when they provide them with discre-tionary space, distribute leadership across the school, and“practice what they preach” (model appropriate values andpractices).

Redesigning the organization. In this category, only theflexible enforcement of rules was identified as having con-sequences for teachers.

Managing the instructional program. This category ofleadership practices includes providing instructional guid-ance, either through some formal supervision procedureor, more importantly, by informally and frequently engag-ing in joint efforts with teachers to find creative ways toimprove instruction. Principals also contribute to teachersatisfaction by providing resources and minimizing studentdisorder in the school.

Other practices. The review also identified four influen-tial practices by principals which could not readily be clas-sified among the four sets of core leadership practices.Principals were found to have a positive effect on teachers’individual and collective efficacy, organizational commit-ment and stress levels when they were able to influencethe decisions of district administrators to the benefit of theschool, communicate effectively; and act in a friendly man-ner. Inconsistent behavior on the part of principals and fre-quent failure to follow through on decisions contributed toexcessive teacher stress.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ACTS AS A CATALYST FOR MANY OTHER SCHOOL

CONDITIONS… COLLABORATIVE CULTURES AND THE STRUCTURES THAT

SUPPORT THEM ARE VERY HARD TO DEVELOP AND SUSTAIN IN THE

ABSENCE OF SUPPORTIVE LEADERSHIP FROM SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS.

44 E D U C AT I O N C A N A D A I C A N A D I A N E D U C A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N

C A N A D I A N E D U C A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N I E D U C AT I O N C A N A D A 45

DISTRICT WORKING CONDITIONS

The review identified a small number of important work-ing conditions over which districts usually have significant,if not primary, control. These conditions influence teach-ers’ individual efficacy, job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment, stress, and morale.

Professional development. Access to meaningful pro-fessional development is one of the most important work-ing conditions a district can provide teachers, according tothe evidence. To be meaningful, some of this professionaldevelopment should occur at the school level, allow forteacher participation in determining content and encour-age teacher-to-teacher interaction.

Salaries. Teacher salaries, typically a product of district–union negotiations, have significant effects on teachers’internal states, in spite of the fact that teachers are amongthe most altruistic of occupational groups. Salaries that arenoticeably lower than those in other nearby districts have aparticularly significant impact on teachers’ feelings.

Demands for change. Districts are a frequent source ofchange – new guidelines, new standards, new programs,new forms of student assessment, and the like. Both thenature and the speed of such change can become a signifi-cant source of stress for teachers. This is the case whenchanges are determined with little teacher consultationand actually fly in the face of what teachers believe shouldbe the priorities; teachers also experience dysfunctionallevels of stress when they believe the timetable for imple-menting district changes is unrealistically short.

Size. Finally large district structures (as with class andschool) are typically less able to provide such helpful condi-tions of work for teachers as a district-wide sense of com-munity and differentiated allocation of resources in sup-port of unique classroom and school improvement efforts.

All of this points to some changes that should be madeto our education systems. Some are changes that teachersand principals can make to their practice, but others willneed to be facilitated by structural change. Most impor-tant, we believe, is the need for policy makers to be highlystrategic in the demands for change that are placed onteachers.

We believe that the time is ripe for rich dialogue abouthow to ensure our education system meets the needs of allstudents. Nothing is more important for us to accomplish.We hope that this review on teacher working conditionsadds to that discussion. I

KEN LEITHWOOD is professor in the Department of Theoryand Policy Studies at the Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation, University of Toronto. His research interestsinclude leadership, policy, and school improvement.

PAT MCADIE is Research Officer with the Elementary Teach-ers’ Federation of Ontario, responsible for research onmember and education issues.

Notes

1 This claim is attributed to North Carolina’s Governor Easley, Hirsch, E.

“Teacher Working Conditions are Student Learning Conditions: A

Report to Governor Mike Easley on the 2004 North Carolina Teacher

Working Conditions Survey,” Chapel Hill, NC: The Southease Center for

Teaching Quality, 2004, p.8.

2 Leithwood, K. Teacher Working Conditions That Matter: Evidence for Change.

Toronto, Ontario: Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2006.