A formatted copy of this paper can be found at:
http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/~Trudy.Cowley/
Teachers Coping with Change: Is a Flexible Workforce the Answer?
Trudy Cowley
University of Tasmania
with
Di Stow & Rob Hart
Department of Education, Community and Cultural Development
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association
for Research in Education (AARE), Brisbane, December 1997.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, teachers have experienced a burgeoning of the amount
of change they encounter in their work lives (Churchill, 1995a;
Phillips, 1995). In addition, these changes have been implemented with
increasing rapidity (Churchill, 1995a; Phillips, 1995). Changes and
initiatives in education in Tasmania in the last five years have
included, inter alia:
- implementation of the national statements and curriculum profiles,
involving emphasis on the following priority areas: English; Studies of
Society and the Environment (SOSE); Science and Technology; The Arts;
and Health and Physical Education;
- the flying start program (formerly the early literacy program);
- literacy testing;
- vocational education and training in schools;
- policy on reporting to parents;
- more rigourous school review and accountability procedures;
- literacy and numeracy policies (including KILOs and KINOs);
- parent participation policy;
- revised discipline guidelines;
- equity in schooling policy;
- policy on education for students who are gifted;
- languages other than english (LOTE) policy;
- inclusion of students with disabilities in regular schools;
- personal records policy;
- requirements for balance in the curriculum;
- policy on career and work education;
- gender equity implementation plan;
- local school leadership and management;
- national action plan for the education of girls;
- accountability policy;
- student health care needs guidelines; and
- directions for education (Tasmanian Government blueprint for
education in the state).
Teachers have been required to understand, implement and internalise
each of these changes as they have been introduced, often
simultaneously. This has resulted in increased stress for these
teachers in many cases (Churchill, 1995a; Churchill, 1996; Mager,
Myers, Maresca, Rupp & Armstrong, 1986), but, in many cases also, as a
result, it has increased teachers' flexibility. In Rick Churchill's
study of the impact of change on teachers' work lives involving
teachers from Tasmania and South Australia (Churchill, 1995a;
Churchill, 1995b; Churchill, 1996), seventy-three percent of teachers
indicated that, as a result of change, they had experienced 'increased
workload and stress', yet sixty percent of teachers indicated they had
'adopted new methods of working', forty-three percent indicated they
had 'adopted new roles and tasks' and thirty-five percent indicated
they had 'generated more collaboration with colleagues'. Surviving and
coping with change "seemed to make teachers feel more confident about
their capacity to cope with whatever a potentially unstable future
might hold in store for them" (Churchill, 1996, p.67).
The introduction of a transfer policy for state school teachers in
Tasmania in recent years is another change these teachers have had to
cope with, but which has allowed teachers to become more flexible.
This paper will explore the issue of increasing teacher flexibility
with respect to the 1994 introduction of the Transfer Policy in the
Tasmanian state education system. First, the Transfer Policy and its
implementation will be outlined. Second, an overview of the impact of
the Transfer Policy on teachers will be provided. Third, how teachers
cope with change and transfer will be examined. Fourth, the nexus
between coping with transfer and increasing teacher flexibility will be
explored. In conclusion, implications for relocating teachers and
increased teacher flexibility will be discussed.
THE TRANSFER POLICY
In May 1994, the Tasmanian state department of education introduced a
Transfer Policy (Department of Education and the Arts, 1994) which
applied to permanent state school teachers. Previous to this no
transfer policy existed; any transfers were conducted under the
auspices of a more general staffing policy. The Tasmanian state
department of education worked collaboratively with the teachers' union
in developing the Transfer Policy. During 1994 and 1995 the Policy
underwent revision and a revised version (Department of Education and
the Arts, 1995) was implemented in 1995, again after collaboration with
the teachers' union.
The Transfer Policy was introduced, in part, to protect teachers from
being transferred without a formalised process of review. It also
aimed "to ensure that students in less favoured schools are not
disadvantaged and that teachers in these schools are given the
opportunity to teach in more favoured schools" (Department of Education
and the Arts, 1995, 1.2). The Department (see note 1) wished to
provide an equitable distribution of teachers and quality of education
across all schools in the state.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY
The Transfer Policy sets out separate guidelines for review of
assignment for teachers in promotable teaching positions (ie Principal,
Assistant Principal, AST3 and AST2) as compared to teachers in
non-promotable teaching positions (including AST1). Three categories
of schools are acknowledged by the Transfer Policy: category A
(difficult to staff) schools (n=43, 6 of which have closed); category B
(non-preferred location) schools (n=20); and non-category A/B (other
location) schools (n=155).
Teachers in non-promotable positions in category B or non-category A/B
schools and teachers in promotable positions in all schools are
reviewed every five years. Teachers in non-promotable positions in
category A schools are reviewed every three years. Upon review, a
teacher may be reassigned to their current school, extended for one or
two years, or transferred.
Under the Policy, all teachers who request relocation from their school
at the end of their assignment will be offered a transfer, and every
effort will be made by the districts to transfer teachers according to
their wishes. Since the implementation of the Policy in 1994, teachers
identified as most available for transfer have been those with a long
history of service in non-category A/B schools. Teachers considered as
next most available for transfer have been those who have never taught
in category A or B schools.
In 1994 through 1996 it was the District Superintendents and the
Assistants to the Superintendents who were responsible for implementing
the Policy and undertaking assignment reviews within their district.
From 1997, after a review of the process by Assistants to the
Superintendents, principals became more involved in the review process
- the initial review has been devolved to them. In 1996, the
Assistants to the Superintendents collaboratively developed a paper,
Annual Staffing Process Statewide Implementation Guidelines (Department
of Education, Community & Cultural Development, 1997), the objective of
which was to ensure more successful implementation of the Transfer
Policy. The paper outlined implementation of the Policy within the
broader structure of overall staffing of Tasmanian state schools. The
paper recommended three 'review' components: teacher self review;
principal review of teacher assignments; and District Superintendent
review of staffing (Department of Education, Community & Cultural
Development, 1997, p.3). Teacher reviews are undertaken prior to the
end of July each year. Teachers are encouraged to reflect on their
current position and to plan for their future assignment prior to
discussion with either their principal or the Assistant to the
Superintendent. The reviews of principals are conducted by the
Superintendent. The outcome of the review is communicated to the
teacher by the end of July although the actual location to which a
teacher is transferred is not known until later in the year.
The Assistants to the Superintendents recognised the need for the above
changes to the implementation of the Policy because of the time
consuming nature of the reviews and the impact they were having on
teachers.
IMPACT OF TRANSFER ON TEACHERS
The information presented here has been gathered as part of a study
investigating the impact of relocation between schools on teachers'
work lives and their quality of teaching. The study involved:
interviews with three District Superintendents and three Assistants to
the Superintendents responsible for implementing the Transfer Policy;
case studies of seven male maths/science teachers prior to and
subsequent to their relocation; and survey of 363 recently relocated
teachers. The teacher case studies involved interviews, observations
and student questionnaires just prior to relocation, immediately after
relocation and towards the end of the first year in their new school.
The survey involved teachers who transferred due to the Transfer Policy
and those who relocated due to promotion. The information presented in
the remainder of this paper will only be drawn from the six case
studies and 296 survey responses which involved teachers who
transferred due to the Transfer Policy; thus, all data and conclusions
refer only to transfer, not relocation in general.
The impact a transfer between schools has on a teacher can be positive,
negative or a mixture of both, depending on a myriad of factors. These
factors are related to, inter alia, the culture of the schools the
teacher is transferring from and to, the transferring teacher's
attitude to change, the amount of support the teacher receives, and the
way in which the transfer is implemented. Many teachers undergo
several transfers during their career and these can impact upon them
differently depending upon the above factors and the timing of the
transfer with respect to their career.
As mentioned previously, many teachers find change, and hence transfer,
stressful. In response to the survey statement 'I am less stressed'
there was a fairly even distribution of responses (n=270) - 38% of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed and 42% disagreed or strongly
disagreed. Yet, when asked to indicate if the word 'stressful'
described their relocation experience, 60% of respondents (n=271)
agreed or strongly agreed and only 29% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Thus, even though the transfer could lead to reduced stress, the
transfer process itself often was stressful. If teachers found
transfer stressful it sometimes impacted upon their health - 25% of
survey respondents (n=264) indicated they experienced more health
problems upon transfer.
When teachers are taken out of a familiar environment and moved to an
unfamiliar environment stress often occurs because they must, among
other things, quickly assimilate new information and procedures and
establish themselves as a professional with colleagues and students.
They often are on a steep learning curve - 79% of survey respondents
(n=261) indicated the word 'learning' described their relocation
experience. The steepness of a transferring teacher's learning curve
can impinge on how quickly they settle into their new school.
Some teachers can feel settled into their new school almost
immediately, others believe it will take them up to four years. Those
teachers who think it will take at least a year or two to settle into
their new school generally perceive being settled into a school in a
more comprehensive manner than those who think it will take them only
two to three months; there are different levels of 'settling in'.
Table 1 indicates survey responses regarding time taken for teachers to
settle into their new school. The majority of teachers believe it
takes up to one year to settle in.
TABLE 1: Time taken to settle into new school.
Time taken to settle into new school (n=285): <1 Term = 26%; 1 Term =
14%; 2 Terms = 10%; 1 Year = 34%; 2 Years = 12%; >2 Years = 4 %.
Time taken to learn school routines/procedures (n=285): <1 Term = 20%;
1 Term = 17%; 2 Terms = 19%; 1 Year = 35%; 2 Years = 7%; >2 Years = 3
%.
Time taken to establish reputation with students (n=284): <1 Term =
22%; 1 Term = 16%; 2 Terms = 13%; 1 Year = 34%; 2 Years = 12%; >2 Years
= 4 %.
Time taken to establish reputation with staff (n=285): <1 Term = 21%;
1 Term = 19%; 2 Terms = 12%; 1 Year = 35%; 2 Years = 9%; >2 Years = 4
%.
Time taken to institute effective classroom routines (n=284): <1 Term
= 46%; 1 Term = 22%; 2 Terms = 14%; 1 Year = 11%; 2 Years = 5%; >2
Years = 3 %.
While a teacher is settling in, the quality of their teaching can
suffer, if only initially and slightly, as they adjust to their new
environment. Yet, for most teachers, transfer allows them to develop
professionally. Survey respondents were asked to choose one of five
graphs/diagrams or draw their own to indicate how the transfer had
impacted on their quality of teaching. These responses were grouped
into thirteen categories, with each category involving three phases
(before transfer, upon transfer, and after transfer) and each phase
being one of the types 'level' (to indicate no change), 'up' (to
indicate growth) or 'down' (to indicate decline). The categories were
grouped further into three overall change groups - 'improved', 'steady'
and 'declined'. The type of drop which occurred upon transfer was
indicated by either 'slight' or 'sharp'. Table 2 shows these groupings
and categories with the percentages of survey respondents (n=269) for
each group/category and the percentage of respondents who indicated a
sharp or a slight drop for each group/category.
TABLE 2: Impact of transfer on quality of teaching.
Overall change - Improved: 34%
/// Up, Up, Up: 17%
/-/ Up, Level, Up: 0.4%
-// Level, Up, Up: 13%
\/- Down, Up, Level: 1%
\// Down, Up, Up: 1%
-/- Level, Up, Level: 1%
Overall change - Steady: 62% (Sharp Drop 52%, Slight Drop 48%)
\\/ Down, Down, Up: 3% (Sharp Drop 89%, Slight Drop 11%)
--- Level, Level, Level: 4%
/\/ Up, Down, Up: 53% (Sharp Drop 51%, Slight Drop 49%)
-\/ Level, Down, Up: 2% (Sharp Drop 20%, Slight Drop 80%)
Overall change - Declined: 5% (Sharp Drop 92%, Slight Drop 8%)
/\\ Up, Down, Down: 2% (Sharp Drop 100%)
-\\ Level, Down, Down: 2% (Sharp Drop 75%, Slight Drop 25%)
/\- Up, Down, Level: 2% (Sharp Drop 100%)
Thus, 63% of survey respondents experienced a drop in teaching quality
upon transfer. For the majority (58%) of these, however, any growth in
teaching quality after transfer brought them back to the level near
where they were at before transfer. Yet, it is important to note that
the other 5% of respondents, even though this may seem like a small
percentage, declined in teaching quality after transfer. This finding
has important consequences for the schools these teachers have been
transferred to and the students they are teaching. It is pleasing to
note, however, that 34% of respondents experienced an overall
improvement in teaching quality as a result of transfer.
Quality of teaching can be sub-divided into several dimensions:
knowledge; skills/abilities; and personal attributes (Cowley, 1996).
In the questionnaire, teachers were asked to indicate on a continuum
from novice, through advanced beginner, competent and proficient, to
expert how they rated their overall level of expertise and their level
of expertise for several sub-dimensions of expertise before and after
transfer. These five stages of the novice to expert continuum were
assigned the numbers 1 through 5 respectively so the difference before
and after transfer could be calculated; the before score was subtracted
from the after score. Thus, an indicated change from proficient to
advanced beginner would be scored as 2 - 4 = -2. These scores, as
percentages of responses, are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3: Change in level of teacher expertise upon transfer.
Overall change in level of expertise (n=275): -4 = 0%; -3 = 2%; -2 =
10%; -1 = 15%; 0 = 68%; +1 = 4%; +2 = 1%; +3 = 0%; +4 = 0%.
Change in knowledge of curriculum & content level of expertise (n=278):
-4 = 0%; -3 = 2%; -2 = 6%; -1 = 12%; 0 = 72%; +1 = 8%; +2 = 0%; +3 =
0%; +4 = 0%.
Change in pedagogical knowledge level of expertise (n=278): -4 = 0%;
-3 = 1%; -2 = 4%; -1 = 12%; 0 = 75%; +1 = 8%; +2 = 1%; +3 = 0%; +4 =
0%.
Change in practical knowledge level of expertise (n=278): -4 = 4%; -3
= 12%; -2 = 18%; -1 = 23%; 0 = 28%; +1 = 12%; +2 = 1%; +3 = 1%; +4 =
0%.
Change in pedagogic skill level of expertise (n=281): -4 = 0%; -3 =
3%; -2 = 6%; -1 = 17%; 0 = 66%; +1 = 8%; +2 = 1%; +3 = 0%; +4 = 0%.
Change in classroom management level of expertise (n=280): -4 = 1%; -3
= 2%; -2 = 9%; -1 = 21%; 0 = 60%; +1 = 6%; +2 = 0%; +3 = 0%; +4 = 0%.
Change in administrative management level of expertise (n=275): -4 =
1%; -3 = 2%; -2 = 9%; -1 = 21%; 0 = 62%; +1 = 6%; +2 = 0%; +3 = 0%; +4
= 0%.
Change in reflection & problem solving level of expertise (n=278): -4
= 0%; -3 = 2%; -2 = 4%; -1 = 16%; 0 = 70%; +1 = 8%; +2 = 1%; +3 = 0%;
+4 = 0%.
Paired t-tests (see note 2) of significant difference between the means
of the before and after scores for each sub-dimension were significant
at p<0.0001 for all dimensions except Pedagogical Knowledge, which was
significant at p=0.0012. Thus, in all cases, even though there was no
change for the large majority of teachers (except for Practical
Knowledge), there was, overall, a significant drop in level of
expertise upon transfer, at least initially. These sub-dimensions will
be discussed in further detail in the following sections.
For teachers who, upon transfer, have to pick up new subject areas, or
to teach their subject area at a different grade or ability level,
there is often a need to develop new content and curriculum knowledge
of that subject. Teachers newly arrived at a school can be unfamiliar
with the curriculum outlines for the courses they are required to teach
in their new school - 20% of survey respondents indicated a drop in the
level of curriculum and content knowledge, whereas 8% indicated a rise.
This rise in level could suggest these teachers had learnt new
curriculum and content knowledge upon transfer.
For most teachers, their knowledge of pedagogy enables them to cope
with the transfer, at least initially. They can fall back on old
'tried and true' methods of teaching whilst they are coping with all
the other changes they are experiencing. For example, one survey
respondent commented, "You find it difficult to experiment with new
ideas as you are unsure - resort to tried and true methods." (77,
Involuntary, /\/, Sharp Drop (see note 3)).
Yet, many teachers widen their knowledge of teaching strategies in
order to improve their teaching in their new school so as to better
suit their new students - 17% of survey respondents indicated a drop in
pedagogical knowledge whilst 9% indicated a rise. The drop in level
could suggest that teachers realised they would need to learn new
pedagogies to suit their new environment.
Many teachers lack practical knowledge of their new school when they
first begin teaching there. They are not familiar with the school's
routines or policies. Many teachers have to pick up this knowledge 'on
the run'. Neither are incoming teachers knowledgeable of the students
or staff at their new school. Yet, before establishing suitable
teaching strategies and beneficial relationships, teachers need to
become familiar with their students. This sub-dimension, practical
knowledge, showed the largest changes in level of expertise before and
after transfer in the survey responses, with 4% of respondents
indicating a change from expert to novice, 57% indicating a drop
overall and 15% indicating a rise. The rise in level could suggest
these teachers learnt new practical knowledge upon transfer.
As well as knowledge, a teacher has skills and abilities which
contribute to their quality of teaching; these include pedagogical
skills, management skills and the ability to reflect on practice and
solve problems. Any of these skills can be affected by transfer,
especially for teachers transferring between schools with different
cultures - 81% of survey respondents (n=282) indicated the cultures of
the schools they transferred from and to were very different, with 28%
of respondents (n=280) indicating they found it difficult to fit with
the culture of their new school and 59% indicating they did not find it
difficult to do so.
Pedagogical skill incorporates those aspects of teachers' work to do
with teaching strategies, planning and preparation and assessment - 26%
of survey respondents indicated a drop in their level of pedagogical
skills upon transfer, whereas 8% indicated a rise. Transfer can
encourage teachers to broaden their range of teaching strategies - 44%
of survey respondents (n=277) indicated a willinginess to try new ideas
upon transfer, while 27% indicated they were not willing to try new
ideas upon transfer. Teachers need to develop new strategies to cope
with different types of students and different subject areas and levels
- 51% of survey respondents (n=259) indicated their teaching upon
transfer had become less traditional (19% more traditional) and 72% of
respondents (n=261) indicated their teaching had become more
student-centred (9% less student-centred). Additionally, 52% of survey
respondents (n=270) indicated their teaching had become more innovative
(18% less innovative), 45% of respondents (n=262) indicated their
teaching had become more progressive (20% less progressive), while 31%
of respondents (n=264) indicated their teaching had become less
teacher-directed (27% more teacher-directed). Thus, overall, teachers
tended to broaden their pedagogical skills upon transfer.
Teachers newly transferred to a school can find, for various reasons,
they have to spend more time planning and preparing lessons - 37% of
survey respondents (n=279) indicated they had difficulty planning and
preparing appropriate lessons upon transfer, while 54% indicated they
had no difficulty. Additionally, transferring teachers may need to
adjust to new assessment strategies - 34% of survey respondents (n=277)
indicated they had difficulty implementing appropriate assessment
strategies upon transfer, whilst 50% indicated they had no difficulty.
Reflection on practice is a very important aspect of a teacher's
skills; it informs teaching. Transfer usually provides teachers with
more opportunities for reflection and problem solving, but finding the
time for reflection may be difficult - 21% of survey respondents
indicated a drop in their level of reflection upon transfer, whereas 9%
indicated a rise.
Teachers manage many different situations within a school, both
behavioural and administrative. Ability to manage administrative tasks
can be affected by a new environment - 32% of survey respondents
indicated a drop in their level of administrative management expertise
upon transfer, whereas only 6% indicated a rise. The administrative
tasks a teacher has depends upon their role within the school. For
many teachers, transfer to a new school can result in a change in their
administrative responsibilities. When a teacher is established in a
school for a length of time they often pick up extra duties (eg grade
supervisor) which they do not take on upon arrival at their new school
- 27% of survey respondents (n=280) indicated their roles within their
new school were broader upon transfer, 39% indicated they were
narrower, and 34% indicated they were unchanged.
Thus, transfer can have either a detrimental or a beneficial effect on
a teacher's career, depending upon the circumstances surrounding the
transfer. Teachers who are interested in promotion or have been
working in acting positions can feel they miss out on career
opportunities when they transfer because they have to re-establish
their reputation amongst new colleagues and feel they are not
recognised for previous accomplishments - 15% of survey respondents
(n=270) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement their prospects
for promotion improved upon transfer, while 39% disagreed or strongly
disagreed. Teachers also recognise that acting positions in a school
are more likely to go to established staff - 38% of survey respondents
(n=271) indicated their prospects for taking on acting positions of
responsbility were limited upon transfer, while 35% indicated their
prospects were not limited. In response to the statement 'The process
of transfer has helped me to rethink and plan my career as a teacher',
41% of survey respondents (n=262) agreed or strongly agreed, while 26%
disagreed or strongly disagreed. Thus, the transfer process can
encourage teachers to reflect on their career and their future.
Behaviour management incorporates management of the classroom situation
and students, including discipline and pastoral care. Teachers who
transfer into schools where students are more self-regulating and
better disciplined (eg senior secondary colleges) recognise a reduced
need for behaviour management skills. Comparatively, teachers who
transfer to schools where the students are less self-regulating and
less disciplined (eg category A schools) recognise an increased need
for behaviour management skills, for different approaches. These
latter teachers are in the majority - 34% of survey respondents
indicated a drop in their level of classroom management expertise upon
transfer, whilst only 6% indicated a rise.
For behaviour management to be effective, teachers need to have an
established reputation with their students. Table 1 showed that 60% of
survey respondents (n=284) indicated establishing a reputation with
students upon transfer would take more than one term. Yet, quickly
establishing their reputation with students and understanding the
students' culture is crucial for new teachers, otherwise quality
teaching practices are difficult to establish - 12% of survey
respondents (n=276) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement their
relationships with students improved upon transfer, while 46% disagreed
or strongly disagreed with the statement.
Additionally, establishing good working relationships with colleagues
is essential for teachers if they are to be productive and contented in
their new school - 13% of survey respondents (n=275) agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement their relationships with staff improved upon
transfer, while 44% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement.
Transfer can impact also on the relationships a teacher develops with
the family/parents of their students. In response to the statement 'My
relationships with the family of my students deteriorated upon
relocation to my new school', 41% of survey respondents (n=274)
disagreed or strongly disagreed but only 17% agreed or strongly agreed.
Therefore, transfer did not, for the majority of teachers, have a
detrimental effect on their relationships with families/parents.
A teacher's ability to form strong relationships with students, staff
and other members of the school community is important, as is their
attitude to change in general. Thus, the personality of the teacher
being transferred can have a large impact on how they cope with the
transfer.
COPING WITH CHANGE
Much research has been undertaken in the area of organisational
socialisation, of which socialisation into a new school environment is
one example. Thomas, Anderson, Hampson & Lawton (1997) describe
organisational socialisation as "the process by which a person learns
about his or her new job role, from specific information about job
tasks to interpersonal aspects of the new job, through to the overall
culture of the organisation" (Thomas et al., 1997, p.1). In other
words, newcomers to a work situation undergo a process of socialisation
during which they learn about and adjust to their new organisation and
role.
As a result of the Transfer Policy, staff movement between schools and
colleges occurs frequently, and as Thomas et al. suggest
"organisational socialisation significantly effects important long-term
job outcomes, including stress, role innovation, value change, job
satisfaction, commitment and intention to quit" (Thomas et al., 1997,
p.1). How teachers cope with relocation is dependent to a large degree
on their organisational socialisation.
Teachers cope with change in various ways, some better than others. A
study by Mager et al. (1986) conducted in the United States
investigated how teachers experience and cope with change engendered by
various types of transition, including relocation. The findings of
this study were based on a series of interviews with teachers before
and after transition. Mager et al. (1986) drew the following
conclusions, inter alia, from their interviews.
1. There exists an initial period of adaptation to the change.
2. Teachers experience increased levels of stress due to the change
process.
3. Teachers in transition require special support, both from the
school and their colleagues.
4. Each teacher's experience of transition is unique, but there are
common threads of experience.
5. Teacher job satisfaction, which is influenced by transition,
influences the classroom learning environment.
6. Teachers need to feel some control over the change process if they
are to react positively to it.
Mager et al.'s work highlights the fact that making a change in
professional assignment has a more substantial effect on teachers than
is generally recognised. All of these factors were evident in the case
study interviews and survey responses. Of the survey respondents, as
indicated previously, 58% indicated an initial drop in teaching quality
upon relocation, and the settling in period for most teachers was up to
one year. The transfer process was stressful for the majority of
teachers and support was often needed. Each teacher's approach to
transfer was unique, and it often depended on how much control they
felt they had over their transfer (47% of survey respondents (n=264)
indicated they had control over their transfer process, while 43%
indicated they did not have control) and their attitude towards change
in general. Teachers can approach transfer with optimism and
anticipation, regard it as an opportunity to make a fresh start and
improve their teaching skills. A teacher that welcomes change,
challenge and the opportunity to broaden their teaching skills is more
likely to benefit from transfer, at least in the long run, if not
initially - 29% of survey respondents (n=278) indicated they were able
to start afresh upon transfer whilst 33% indicated they were not able
to make a fresh start.
Most teachers who responded to the questionnaire indicated they coped
with changes engendered by relocation in a positive manner, viewing the
experience as a challenge. When asked to indicate if certain words
described their relocation experience, 62% of survey respondents
(n=242) agreed or strongly agreed and only 8% disagreed or strongly
disagreed with positive words such as 'smooth', 'learning',
'rewarding', 'refreshing', 'challenging' and 'exciting', whilst 41% of
respondents (n=246) agreed or strongly agreed and 28% disagreed or
strongly disagreed with negative words such as 'stressful', 'lonely',
'scary', 'frustrating', 'difficult', 'traumatic' and 'tiring'.
Additionally, upon transfer, 39% of survey respondents (n=265)
indicated they were more satisfied (32% were less satisfied); 66% of
respondents (n=262) were more committed (17% were less committed); 66%
of respondents (n=276) were more challenged (15% were less challenged);
48% of respondents (n=272) were more valued (31% were less valued); and
38% of respondents (n=267) were more enthusiastic (30% were less
enthusiastic). Therefore, by and large, teachers took a positive
approach to their transfer and felt more positive about it subsequent
to transfer, but it was not all smooth sailing for them.
When these statistics are split to consider the percentages for those
teachers who transferred voluntarily in comparison to those who
transferred partly voluntarily or involuntarily, it can be seen from
Table 4 that those teachers who transferred voluntarily had a more
positive approach to the relocation than those who transferred partly
voluntarily, and these teachers had a more positive approach than those
who transferred involuntarily.
TABLE 4: Percentage frequencies and means for responses to positive
and negative words describing relocation experience, split by
voluntariness of relocation.
Voluntary transfer - positive words (n=118): mean (see note 4) = 3.8,
3% disagree/strongly disagree, 74% agree/strongly agree.
Voluntary transfer - negative (n=124): mean = 3.0, 37%
disagree/strongly disagree, 37% agree/strongly agree.
Partly voluntary transfer - positive words (n=60): mean = 3.6, 5%
disagree/strongly disagree, 60% agree/strongly agree.
Partly voluntary transfer - negative words (n=58): mean = 3.3, 21%
disagree/strongly disagree, 38% agree/strongly agree.
Involuntary transfer - positive words (n=63): mean = 3.1, 22%
disagree/strongly disagree, 43% agree/strongly agree.
Involuntary transfer - negative words (n=63): mean = 3.5, 17%
disagree/strongly disagree, 52% agree/strongly agree.
Unpaired t-tests (see note 5) were conducted to determine whether or
not the difference between the means of the response scores to positive
and negative words describing relocation experience was significant
dependent on voluntariness of relocation. Table 5 indicates the
p-values returned. The difference between voluntary and involuntary
transfers is highly significant for both negative and positive words.
TABLE 5: p-values returned for unpaired t-tests comparing responses to
positive and negative words describing relocation experience, split by
voluntariness of relocation.
Voluntary v. Partly Voluntary: positive words p-value (see note 6) =
0.0330; negative words p-value = 0.0397.
Partly Voluntary v. Involuntary: positive words p-value = 0.0019;
negative words p-value = 0.1232.
Voluntary v. Involuntary: positive words p-value < 0.0001; negative
words p-value = 0.0003.
Thus, those teachers who transferred involuntarily were significantly
more negative in attitude towards relocation and associated changes
than those teachers who transferred voluntarily. This may have been
because, as Mager et al. suggested, those teachers who transferred
involuntarily had less control over their relocation. Table 6 shows
the mean responses to positive and negative words describing relocation
experience split by the level of control the respondents perceived
themselves as having over their relocation experience.
TABLE 6: Means for responses to positive and negative words describing
relocation experience, split by level of control over relocation
experience.
Lacked control - positive words: mean = 3.3; 14% disagree/strongly
disagree; 2% agree/strongly agree.
Lacked control - negative words: mean = 3.6; 13% disagree/strongly
disagree; 35% agree/strongly agree.
Neutral regarding level of control - positive words: mean = 3.5; 37%
disagree/strongly disagree; 20% agree/strongly agree.
Neutral regarding level of control - negative words: mean = 3.1; 29%
disagree/strongly disagree; 32% agree/strongly agree.
Had control - positive words: mean = 3.8; 49% disagree/strongly
disagree; 78% agree/strongly agree.
Had control - negative words: mean = 2.9; 58% disagree/strongly
disagree; 33% agree/strongly agree.
Thus, those teachers who believed they lacked control over their
transfer felt more negative about the experience, and those teachers
who believed they had control over their transfer felt more positive
about the experience.
Unpaired t-tests (see note 7) indicated that the difference between the
means of the response scores for positive and negative words describing
relocation experience for teachers who felt they lacked control and
those who felt they had control were highly significant. The p-values
are shows in Table 7.
TABLE 7: p-values returned for unpaired t-tests comparing responses to
positive and negative words describing relocation, split by level of
control over relocation experience.
Lacked Control v. Neutral: positive words p-value = 0.1396; negative
words p-value = 0.0383.
Neutral v. Had Control: positive words p-value = 0.1354; negative
words p-value = 0.3552.
Lacked Control v. Had Control: positive words p-value < 0.0001;
negative words p-value < 0.0001.
Overall then, it would seem that those teachers who were positive
towards their relocation experience were statistically more likely to
have been those who transferred voluntarily and who had some degree of
control over their relocation experience. In comparison, those
teachers who were more negative towards their relocation experience
were statistically more likely to have been those who transferred
involuntarily and who lacked control over their relocation experience.
As Mager et al. (1986) found, adequate support is needed for teachers
to cope with change effectively, especially those teachers who are
transferred involuntarily and who lack control over their relocation
experience. Table 8 shows the percentage of survey responses for
statements referring to support received or not received during
transfer.
TABLE 8: Support received/not received during transfer.
Received adequate support from new school (n=283): SD (see note 8) =
6%; D = 15%; N = 11%; A = 46%; SA = 21%.
Received inadequate support from new staff (n=277): SD = 25%; D = 43%;
N = 11%; A = 15%; SA = 7%.
Received adequate support from DECCD (see note 9) (n=275): SD = 21%; D
= 20%; N = 33%; A = 20%; SA = 4%.
Allocated suitable classes upon relocation (n=280): SD = 4%; D = 12%;
N = 6%; A = 49%; SA = 29%.
Received assistance with PD (n=279): SD = 13%; D = 26%; N = 19%; A =
32%; SA = 9%.
Thus, the majority of transferred teachers indicated they received
adequate support from their new school (67%) and the staff at their new
school (68%), and were allocated suitable classes upon transfer (78%).
However, most survey respondents indicated they did not receive
adequate support from the education department (41%) and there was a
fairly equal distribution of respondents who felt they did (41%) and
did not (39%) receive adequate professional development support.
To investigate the question, 'Is level of support a possible
determinant of how well a teacher copes with transfer?', those teachers
whose teaching quality improved overall upon transfer were deemed to be
those who coped well with transfer and those teachers whose teaching
quality declined overall upon transfer were deemed to be those who did
not cope well with transfer. Table 9 shows the means of responses for
questions on the survey which related to support received or not
received during relocation, split by those teachers who indicated an
overall improvement in teaching quality due to transfer (ie those who
coped well), those teachers whose teaching quality remained steady
after relocation, and those teachers whose teaching quality declined
overall due to relocation (ie those who did not cope well).
TABLE 9: Support received/not received during transfer, split by
overall change in quality of teaching due to transfer.
Received adequate support from new school: total mean = 3.6; improved
mean = 4.0; steady mean = 3.5; declined mean = 2.6.
Received inadequate support from new staff: total mean = 2.3; improved
mean = 2.3; steady mean = 2.3; declined mean = 3.3.
Received adequate support from DECCD: total mean = 2.7; improved mean
= 3.0; steady mean = 2.6; declined mean = 2.0.
Allocated suitable classes upon relocation: total mean = 3.9; improved
mean = 4.2; steady mean = 3.8; declined mean = 3.8.
Received assistance with PD: total mean = 3.0; improved mean = 3.4;
steady mean = 2.8; declined mean = 2.3.
Mann-Whitney U tests (see note 10) were conducted to compare the
differences between the means of the responses to statements regarding
support received or not received upon transfer, split by the overall
change in teaching quality indicated by respondents. The results are
shown in Table 10.
Table 10: p-values returned for Mann-Whitney U tests comparing responses
to statements regarding support received/not received upon relocation,
split by overall change in teaching quality after relocation.
Received adequate support from new school: improved v. steady p-value
= 0.0011; steady v. declined p-value = 0.0222; improved v. declined
p-value = 0.0006.
Received inadequate support from new staff: improved v. steady p-value
= 0.5174; steady v. declined p-value = 0.0051; improved v. declined
p-value = 0.0031.
Received adequate support from DECCD: improved v. steady p-value =
0.0034; steady v. declined p-value = 0.0974; improved v. declined
p-value = 0.0085.
Allocated suitable classes upon relocation: improved v. steady p-value
= 0.0208; steady v. declined p-value = 0.6206; improved v. declined
p-value = 0.8058.
Received assistance with PD: improved v. steady p-value = 0.0001;
steady v. declined p-value = 0.0920; improved v. declined p-value =
0.0034.
Thus, all forms of support impact in some way on change in teaching
quality due to transfer. Those teachers who received inadequate
support from their new school, inadequate support from staff at their
new school, inadequate support from DECCD and did not receive
assistance with professional development upon transfer were more likely
to suffer an overall decline in teaching quality. Thus, these teachers
were less likely to cope well with the transfer. Teachers who received
support from their new school and DECCD and who were allocated suitable
classes and received assistance with professional development were more
likely to experience an overall improvement in teaching quality due to
transfer, and thus could be said to have coped better with relocation.
Teachers were invited on the questionnaire to make comments about the
support they did or did not receive upon relocation to their new
school. A selection of these responses are given here to illustrate
the types of responses (n=115) received, and how support mechanisms did
and did not assist teachers to cope with transfer and adapt to the
changes encountered.
Many teachers commented they received excellent and necessary support
from their new school, particularly from colleagues, and not
necessarily formal support. This support helped them to adjust quickly
to their new environment and to cope with the transfer.
"Excellent support available. Staff really helped me to fit in
easily." (34, Partly Voluntary, /\/, Slight Drop)
"My new school staff was very supportive and in fact was the only thing
that kept me going! (last year)." (77, Involuntary, /\/, Sharp Drop)
"The staff, in particular my immediate colleagues, gave wonderful
support in many ways. Without them I would probably have given up."
(80, Voluntary, /\/, Sharp Drop)
"Excellent. I was given all that I needed before school started
regarding policies, documents, keyset. Principal and staff were
friendly, I felt at home from the first day. I feel very lucky to have
had such a great beginning here." (378, Voluntary, -//)
Nevertheless, a significant number of teachers made comments about the
lack of support they received, particularly from DECCD. Several of
these teachers indicated their need, as a result, to seek support for
themselves when necessary to help them cope with the transfer.
"Because I was perceived as 'very experienced' I was basically left to
my own devices. I had a very difficult class which I took over in
middle of year (sic). Senior staff support was not good enough." (84,
Involuntary, /\/, Sharp Drop)
"There was virtually no support. To survive you gathered your own
support from staff who had also been relocated. Routines, procedures
and policy were not readily disseminated. You learnt the art of
questioning as routines etc were set in cement. The original staff
were not used to new staff members who were prepared to question
procedures. A workshop for them would have been invaluable." (170,
Involuntary, /\-, Sharp Drop)
"School did not offer an induction program of any type as such a
procedure is not a part of school culture. You need to seek and search
for yourself where equipment is kept; resources, accessibility to parts
of the school. You cope as best you can and seek assistance from
cleaners, etc to assist you in locating resources, etc." (171,
Voluntary, ---)
"In my 1994 (previous) relocation I received inadequate support, very
inadequate from DECCD. I was expected to teach a new subject and I
found it difficult to fit into the culture and received no professional
development." (330, Voluntary, -//)
"Some staff were excellent but the school itself had few support
structures, and none that worked particularly well in explaining
procedures, processes etc. It was a case of learn by experience.
Sometimes bewildering." (511, Voluntary, -\/, Slight Drop)
One teacher reinforced the necessity for support to be ongoing until
the teacher has 'found their feet', otherwise any growth can be
negated.
"Support was reasonable in my first year. However, in my second year
there seemed to be an assumption that I "knew it all" and would not
need assistance." (98, Involuntary, /\-, Sharp Drop)
These excerpts show that teachers can adapt when they are put in a new
situation without the necessary, formal support structures, but that
formalised support is of great assistance. Teachers, by demonstrating
self-sufficiency and flexibility, can find support for themselves on a
needs basis and build up their own support networks, but support
provided by DECCD and the school also is necessary.
The paper developed by the Assistants to the Superintendents
(Department of Education, Community & Cultural Development, 1997)
recognised the need to support teachers during transfer. Guideline 7
stated:
"School-based professional development support is recommended for
teachers transferring, including where possible:
- school visits, pairing with mentor.
- involvement in professional development activities.
- involvement in school planning."
The provision of this support, however, has been limited by low levels
of funding. One aspect of this has been, since the introduction of the
Transfer Policy, the Change of Workplace workshops, one per district
which are run by Human and Personnel Services Branch (Staff Development
Section) of DECCD and designed to support teachers transferring to a
new school or college, in some cases changing district in the process.
The workshops are structured to provide for effective personal
planning, and to assist teachers with strategies for working through
the workplace change in a positive way. A Hobart based consultant, a
psychologist and human resource consultant, has been contracted to run
each workshop in order for there to be consistency throughout the
state. The workshops are held in early to mid October each year.
Teachers changing workplace are invited by personal letter to attend
the workshop for their district; all transferring staff are invited to
attend a workshop, and their attendance is on a voluntary basis. For
example, staff who are reluctant transferees are not singled out as
needing to attend a workshop, and neither are those staff comfortable
about their move encouraged not to attend. The workshops are extremely
well attended.
The emphasis of the workshops is very much on supporting teachers as
they come to terms with their transfer, and this has been an important
consideration with respect to the consultant, the program, the venue
and the hospitality. The consultant has identified a number of issues.
There is clearly a need for teachers to visit the school or college to
which they are transferring, and the workshops are based around the
assumption that such visits are supported. It is important to note
that at the time the workshops are conducted, participants usually are
unaware of the school or college to which they are being transferred
and for some this is a problem. The workshops are scheduled to support
people soon after they receive their letter of transfer, rather than
scheduled for November when teaching positions for the next year are
known.
Ensuring that schools and colleges provide a good induction process has
been seen as a high priority, with the principal and at least one other
staff member being involved in the process of welcoming and settling
the new staff member. Some schools and colleges do have induction
programs, while others do not. There is acknowledgement that there is
a high need for teachers who are transferring involuntarily to attend
the workshops and that there also is a strong need for those teachers
who are transferring voluntarily to attend, especially if those staff
have been in a particular school or college for some time. In
addition, it is seen to be of benefit to have teachers from both
non-category A/B and category A or category B schools in attendance
because of the opportunity for sharing that such interaction affords.
The focus of the workshops is helping teachers to cope with change.
Teachers who can cope effectively with change are likely to be more
adaptable and flexible.
INCREASING TEACHER FLEXIBILITY
To some extent, an increase in teacher flexibility has been an
unplanned outcome of the introduction of the Transfer Policy. Teacher
flexibility, here, refers to the ease with which teachers can adapt to
new surroundings, teach in new content areas, teach at different
levels, and take on innovation and change. Teachers undergoing
transfer are required to be flexible as they are being asked to adapt
quickly to a new environment, school culture, school type (eg transfer
from senior secondary college to high school), and often to take on the
challenge of teaching classes they have not taught before or recently,
either with respect to content, type (eg composite cf single grade), or
level. Accordingly, 46% of survey respondents (n=278) indicated they
were teaching in a different subject area the year after transfer, 73%
of respondents (n=274) indicated they were teaching at a different
grade level the year after transfer, and 19% of respondents (n=283)
indicated they were teaching in a school type they had never previously
taught in whilst 36% of respondents (n=283) were teaching in a school
type different to the one they had taught in the previous year.
Teachers have to adapt to these new situations and school cultures,
often times without the necessary support structures to make this
adaption smooth and easy.
Teachers have been taken out of their comfort zone in many cases and,
as indicated in the previous section, most teachers have accepted the
challenge offered them with a positive outlook, with continued growth
or rejuvenated improvement in their teaching, even though there may be
an initial setback, if given appropriate support. Thus, transfer has
been an opportunity for many teachers to broaden their skills, both
pedagogical and managerial, thus increasing their flexibility as a
teacher. The following sample of comments from survey respondents
demonstrates how teachers have broadened their skills and knowledge
base.
"One of the best things a teacher can do is to work with and see as
many different teachers and their methods as possible. This can only
be done successfully by teaching in a number of and variety of
schools." (24, Voluntary, -//)
"The relocation has forced me to look at teaching practices,
particularly those in the affective areas." (169, Voluntary, /\/,
Sharp Drop)
"Every time I am relocated - either by choice or not - I have tried
both new and old ideas - I've made the "best of my lot"." (256,
Voluntary, ///)
"It allowed me to broaden my professional relationships and therefore
pick up new ideas." (317, Voluntary, /\/, Slight Drop)
"Forced to teach completely out of area may be turning out to be a
'blessing in disguise'." (449, Partly Voluntary, /\/, Slight Drop)
It was recognised by respondents that some schools allow for growth
more than others. Many teachers found that small, rural schools
stymied growth, yet some teachers found the opposite was true in these
schools; their role was broadened. For example,
"Moving from a city school as one of four PE teachers on staff to a
district school where I am responsible for K-12 is excellent. The
organisation skills, capabilities that I hadn't needed before (but
always knew I had) are being well and truly used." (489, Voluntary
-//)
Thus, as indicated earlier and by these comments, many teachers found
transfer a challenging, learning experience which allowed them to
extend their boundaries. Adoption of a positive attitude to the
transfer, seeing it as a challenge and a chance for growth enabled
these teachers to benefit from the experience by improving their skills
and knowledge base.
In contrast, a minority of teachers, often those who lacked control
over their transfer, found the relocation experience difficult and
stressful. As such, it was a negative experience for them, stymying
growth and innovation.
"I have become more tired/stressed. The work load has doubled and
there are more restrictions on your 'flexibility' as a teacher." (2,
Partly Voluntary, /\-, Sharp Drop)
"I do not want to go through this process again, therefore I shall
continue until my superannuation can be made available then I shall
discontinue full-time teaching/seek other work." (52, Involuntary,
/\/, Sharp Drop)
"It has left me with low morale and self-esteem. I feel like a
beginning teacher - after 20 years of experience!" (528, Involuntary,
/\/, Sharp Drop)
These teachers were less able to cope with the change; they were less
flexible.
Superintendents' and Assistants' to the Superintendents decisions to
either transfer, reassign or extend teachers were based often on their
analysis of the flexibility of the teachers they were reviewing. They
recognised that some teachers welcome change, and, at the other end of
the spectrum, some teachers resist change. This was particularly true
in the first year of implementation of the Transfer Policy when the
teachers targetted for transfer were those with a long history of
teaching in their current school. These teachers, by their
circumstance, were likely to be the least flexible in the teaching
force, yet they were the first being asked to transfer.
A proportion of these teachers taught in the senior secondary college
sector and were asked to transfer to high schools. Transfer across
sectors is difficult for all teachers as the school cultures are very
different, but particularly so for these teachers. They found it
difficult to adapt as they often viewed themselves as specialist senior
secondary teachers, and so were less flexible, thus requiring extra
support. One of the case study participants, Richard, transferred from
a senior secondary college, where he had taught Maths and Physical
Science for 17 years, to a high school where he was allocated grades 7,
9 and 10 maths and science classes. Richard found the transfer
difficult; his quality of teaching dropped upon transfer and he found
it difficult to regain as his behaviour management skills were 'rusty'
to say the least. However, Richard was attempting to improve his
skills and regain lost ground.
Accordingly, Rob, an Assistant to the Superintendent, expressed the
view (7/11/97) that prior to the introduction of the Transfer Policy a
significant number of teachers had spent fifteen years or longer, in
some cases up to thirty years plus, in the one school despite changes
to the school's staffing needs. No procedures for the review of
teachers' assignments had existed. For these long-term teachers in
particular, the introduction of a system of assignment review was
totally new and, in some cases, threatening. Superintendents and
Assistants to the Superintendents were of the opinion that as the
Policy became a part of the culture and general staffing policy, and
the teachers being identified for transfer were not those who had been
in schools the longest, that any distress, fear and anxiety about the
change process would abate.
"I believe that as we move closer towards reviewing people after five
years, we're more likely to be reviewing teachers who are fairly
flexible in their thinking and more likely to be successful in a
transfer than the first groups we reviewed." (Rick, 16/9/96)
"Since the introduction of the Transfer Policy teachers are becoming
increasingly accustomed to the review process which is becoming a part
of school culture." (Rob, 7/11/97)
This is evidenced by the data collected in this study from teachers
over the past three years - with each year, the verbal and written
responses from teachers have become more positive. Rob further
expressed the view (7/11/97) that an understanding of the relationship
between the outcome of review and school needs is developing. Many
teachers now are requesting transfers in their review year as they
become aware of changing school needs or they become aware of new
challenges in other locations.
Thus, as teachers have become more used to seeing their career as
involving a review every three or five years, they have become more
flexible in their outlook. Additionally, as they transfer to new
teaching environments more regularly and adjust to different school
cultures, they become more flexible in their teaching. Thus, as
indicated earlier, reviewing and transferring teachers on a regular
basis has encouraged teachers to review and plan their career.
The review process has also allowed for increased communication between
principals and staff. Rob expressed the view (7/11/97) that with the
responsibility for the review of teachers' assignments now resting with
principals, they have been required to speak with teachers about such
things as school needs as well as the teacher's needs, career goals and
aspirations. In some cases, such communications have never occurred
previously, which has led teachers to view reassignment as an
endorsement of their teaching and transfer as being 'kicked out'.
Transfer Policy discussions with the principal have promoted greater
understanding of both the school's and the teacher's needs and has led
to greater acceptance of the review outcome.
Thus, in general, transfer has enabled teachers to develop more
flexibility as a professional. Most teachers have viewed transfer as
challenging, refreshing and rewarding, resulting in learning and
broadened pedagogy. Yet, to maximise this growth in flexibility, a
degree of control over the transfer process and appropriate support
structures need to be in place for transferring teachers. Those
teachers who lacked control and support found it more difficult to
adapt and were less likely to learn from the experience and improve
their teaching as a result. Even though the numbers of teachers in
this position were in the minority, every effort should be made to
reduce this number to zero. All teachers should be supported in such a
way that they find the transfer experience a positive one which
develops their flexibility and ability as a teacher. Flexibility as a
teaching professional is becoming increasingly important as change
becomes a dominant feature of the professional landscape.
CONCLUSION
The introduction of the Transfer Policy in Tasmania is just one of the
many forms of change that teachers are having to cope with in a society
where change, increasingly, is the norm. Teachers affected by the
Transfer Policy are not only having to change schools, but are also
having to, inter alia, adapt to a new school culture, establish new
relationships with staff, students and parents, explore new teaching
and behaviour management strategies, adopt new roles and
responsibilities, learn new knowledge (pedagogical, practical,
curriculum and content), plan for their future, and access new and
different resources and technologies. This is often stressful for
teachers, and can be a negative experience if only initially; but for
many teachers, it is a challenge, a chance to learn, grow and develop
as a teacher. Transferring teachers often meet this challenge head on
and determine to gain as much from the experience as they can. In
order to do this effectively, however, teachers need to be supported,
both by their schools and the system. Most teachers will experience
some form of drop in quality of teaching upon transfer (from very small
to very large). How quickly or if they recover from this drop will
depend, not only on the attitude of the teacher to the transfer, the
degree of control they have over the transfer, but also on the amount
of appropriate support they receive. The support program proposed by
the Assistants to the Superintendents would be effective if fully
funded and insituted on an ongoing basis.
Those teachers who meet the challenge of transfer head on and use it as
an opportunity to learn and grow are developing the flexibility to be
able to deal effectively with all forms of change. In the three years
since the Transfer Policy has been implemented the mindset of teachers
has changed, it has become more flexible. No longer do teachers see
their career as a teacher involving long stints in only one or two
schools; they now expect to spend only 5-10 years in any one school
before moving on to new challenges. Thus, in three years, the Transfer
Policy has helped develop a mindset amongst teachers which welcomes and
expects change - teachers have become more flexible, not only in their
teaching, but also in their thinking. This has implications for
schools, teachers, students and the system.
IMPLICATIONS
The development of flexible teachers, both with respect to teaching and
thinking, has many implications for education and the quality of
teaching and learning occurring in schools. Some of these are outlined
below.
* Cross-fertilisation of ideas and pedagogies will occur as teachers
meet new colleagues at their new school, but also keep in contact with
colleagues from their old schools. This will promote networking, not
only among teachers, but also between schools.
* Teachers will be continually challenged and, as a consequence, will
be learning (at times the learning curve will be steeper than at other
times).
* Professional development will be needed for many teachers,
especially those changing sectors, discipline areas, or grade levels.
* Professional development of principals will be needed also as they
increasingly become involved in career counselling of staff.
* Induction and appropriate support is needed for transferring
teachers. Determinations must be made as to who is in the best
position to provide this support - the school or the system? - and
funding must be allocated.
* As teachers become more flexible they will be better equipped to
cope with and adapt to change in all its forms.
* As principals become more involved in the process, teachers will be
better matched to their school with respect to philosophy, discipline,
and pedagogy. This will benefit both teachers and students and
teachers may be able to see better why they are being transferred.
* As principals consider their school's staffing profile, they will
need to have a broader outlook - a district-wide and state-wide focus.
Similarly, teachers will need to develop a stronger district-wide
focus.
* Teachers will begin to develop a plan for their career, often in
conjunction with a principal.
* The transfer could help to break down the perception teachers have
of themselves as either senior secondary, secondary, primary or early
childhood teachers, and so begin to see themselves more as general
educationalists, and thus able to cope in any teaching situation.
REFERENCES
Churchill, R. (1995a). Educational Change and Teachers' Work. In T.
Cowley & J. Williamson (Eds.), Four Aspects of Change: The Challenge
for Teacher Education, (pp.11-26). Launceston, TAS: School of
Education, University of Tasmania.
Churchill, R. (1995b). Teachers' Work Lives: The View From Teachers
Implementing Educational Change. In T. Cowley & J. Williamson (Eds.),
Teachers' Work Lives: The View from Relief Teachers, Transferred
Teachers and Teachers Implementing Educational Change, (pp.63-84).
Launceston, TAS: School of Education, University of Tasmania.
Churchill, R. (1996). The New Realities of Teachers' Work Lives:
Drawing Theory From Practice. In T. Cowley & J. Williamson (Eds.), Can
the Blind Lead the Blind? Illuminating Practice with Research,
(pp.51-75). Launceston, TAS: School of Education, University of
Tasmania.
Cowley, T. (1996). Expert Teachers in Transition: An exercise in
vitiation or renascence? A case study of one. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
York, NY, 8 April, 1996.
Department of Education and the Arts. (1994). Transfer Policy:
Teaching Service Employees (Policy Document). Hobart, TAS: Department
of Education and the Arts.
Department of Education and the Arts. (1995). Transfer Policy -
Teaching Service Employees (1995 revised version) (Policy Document).
Hobart, TAS: Department of Education and the Arts.
Department of Education, Community & Cultural Development. (1997).
Annual Staffing Process Statewide Implementation Guidelines . Hobart,
TAS: DECCD.
Mager, G. M., Myers, B., Maresca, N., Rupp, L., & Armstrong, L.
(1986). Changes in Teachers' Work Lives. The Elementary School
Journal, 86(3), pp.345-357.
Phillips, R. (1995). On Support for Innovation: Who or What is the
Driver? In T. Cowley & J. Williamson (Eds.), Innovation and
Implementation: Stories of Success, (pp.53-57). Launceston, TAS:
School of Education, University of Tasmania.
Thomas, H. D. C., Anderson, N., Hampson, A., & Lawton, D. (1997). The
Measurement of Organisational Socialisation. Unpublished paper.
NOTES
1 The Tasmanian state department of education was called the
Department of Education and the Arts up until 1996 when it became the
Department of Education, Community and Cultural Development.
2 The data were deemed to be normally distributed as kurtosis and
skewness values were all less than 1, therefore parametric statistics
could be used.
3 The number refers to the coded number on the returned
questionnaires; the term 'voluntary', 'partly voluntary', or
'involuntary' refers to the reason/voluntariness of the teacher's
relocation; the code (eg /\/) refers to the change in teaching quality
of the teacher prior to, upon and after relocation; and, if the code
indicates a drop upon relocation, whether it is a sharp or slight drop
is indicated.
4 The range for the mean is from 1 to 5. The response choices,
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Disagree nor Agree, Agree and
Strongly Agree, were scored as 1 through 5 respectively.
5 The data were deemed to be normally distributed as kurtosis and
skewness values were all less than 1, therefore parametric statistics
could be used.
6 p-values are considered significant at p<0.05.
7 Again the data were deemed to be normally distributed as kurtosis
and skewness values were all less than 1, therefore parametric
statistics could be used.
8 SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neither Disagree nor
Agree; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree.
9 DECCD is the acronym for Department of Education, Community and
Cultural Development (formerly the Department of Education and the Arts
(DEA)).
10 The data were deemed not to be normally distributed as some
kurtosis and skewness values were greater than 1, therefore the
nonparametric form of the unpaired t-test, the Mann-Whitney U test, was
used.