the impact of science learning centre continuing
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Impact of Science Learning Centre
continuing professional development
on teachers' retention and careers
Final Report May 2012
2
Citing this publication Wolstenholme, C., Coldwell, M. and Stevens, A. (2012) The Impact of Science Learning Centre continuing professional development on teachers' retention and careers: final report. [Sheffield: CEIR.]
Acknowledgments Thanks to Ihsan Caillau and Ben Willis for fieldwork and analysis, and Andy Hobson for
advice throughout.
Thanks are especially due to all of the teachers and lecturers who took part in the survey
and telephone interviews.
Centre for Education and Inclusion Research
Sheffield Hallam University
Unit 7 Science Park
Howard Street
Sheffield
S1 1WB
Tel: 0114 225 6060
Fax: 0114 225 6068
e-mail: [email protected]
www.shu.ac.uk/ceir
3
Contents Citing this publication ............................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................... 2
Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 3
List of tables and figures ......................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1. A note on terminology ............................................................................................................ 9
2. Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 10
2.1. Survey methodology ............................................................................................................. 10
2.2. Telephone interview methodology ....................................................................................... 11
3. Linking teacher CPD and retention and career: summary of a review of literature ..................... 13
4. Retention ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 14
4.1. Quantitative survey data ...................................................................................................... 14
4.2. Qualitative data: interviews and open survey questions ..................................................... 20
5. Career Outcomes .......................................................................................................................... 26
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 26
5.1. Career Progression: quantitative survey data ...................................................................... 26
5.2. Career Progression: qualitative data from interviews and open survey questions .............. 29
5.3. Intermediate career impacts ................................................................................................ 32
6. Influencing factors ........................................................................................................................ 34
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 34
6.1. Factors related to the CPD itself ........................................................................................... 34
6.2. Individual factors ................................................................................................................... 36
6.3. School-related factors ........................................................................................................... 37
6.4. Wider contextual factors ...................................................................................................... 39
7. Conclusions and implications ........................................................................................................ 40
8. References .................................................................................................................................... 44
4
List of tables and figures
Table 2.1 Achieved sample profile ........................................................................................................ 10
Table 2.2 Respondent profile ................................................................................................................ 10
Table 2.3 User group by education phase ............................................................................................ 11
Figure 4.1 Impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on likelihood of staying in teaching: the
relationship with level of engagement ................................................................................................. 15
Figure 4.2 Impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on likelihood of staying in teaching: the
relationship with education phase ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4.3 Impact of aspects of CPD on likelihood of staying in teaching: the relationship with level of
engagement .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 4.1 Statistical values for aspects of CPD by level of engagement ............................................... 18
Figure 4.4 Percentage agreement that Science Learning Centre CPD had more impact on likelihood of
staying in teaching than other similar provision................................................................................... 19
Table 4.2 Indirect effects on retention (from open survey comments) ............................................... 25
Figure 5.1 Impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on aspects of career: the relationship with level of
engagement (percentage stating positive impact) ............................................................................... 27
Table 5.1 Statistical values for professional development aspect by level of engagement ................. 27
Figure 5.2 Impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on promotion: the relationship with education
phase (percentage stating positive impact) .......................................................................................... 28
Table 5.2 Pre Science Learning Centre and Current job roles .............................................................. 28
Table 5.3 Relationship between measured Career progression and level of engagement with Science
Learning Centre CPD ............................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 5.3: Impact on satisfaction with career by engagement with Science Learning Centre Provision
.............................................................................................................................................................. 33
5
Executive Summary
The research brief
The overarching aim of the study reported here was to explore the impact of the support for
the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) of teachers provided by Science Learning
Centres on individual teachers' career progression and retention within the profession. The
study was organised to attempt to answer three key Research Questions:
RQ1. What are (science) teachers’ views about the importance of CPD in supporting their
career progression and retention?
RQ2. What is the relationship between Science Learning Centres’ CPD and retention and
progression in the profession?
RQ3. What are the career trajectories of teachers who have engaged to differing extents in
Science Learning Centres’ CPD?
RQ1 was addressed by a review of literature, a summary of which is presented in Section
three of the full report. RQ2 and RQ3 were answered using primary data collection - a
survey and telephone interviews.
The survey of course attendees was drawn from the National Science Learning Centre
database, resulting in 519 useable responses with a response rate of 14 per cent. The
sample was constructed so that equal numbers were selected from each of three groups of
users "high users" (with high levels of engagement with Science Learning Centre Provision)
"medium users" and "low users". Overall, 60 per cent of the achieved sample were
secondary school teachers, and 19 per cent were primary school teachers, 12 per cent
taught in Further Education Colleges, three per cent in special schools and six per cent in
independent schools.
25 telephone interviews took place to follow the survey. Interviewees consisted of 19 from
secondary schools, four from primary schools and two from FE colleges. The level of
engagement with the programme, in terms of high, medium and low, was in line with the
survey.
Key Findings
Retention
The sample we spoke to were broadly settled in teaching. The majority of teachers
involved in the survey were likely to stay in teaching for the long term, with over half stating
they would stay in the profession for the rest of their career and another 30 per cent for the
next five years. Only five per cent were either undecided or likely to leave. The telephone
study sample broadly matched this distribution.
Most of the respondents felt that their engagement with Science Learning Centre CPD
had had an impact on their likelihood of staying in teaching, and this was particularly
true of users with a high level of engagement with Science Learning Centre CPD.
6
The biggest impacts on intentions to stay in teaching came from those teachers
engaged with subject focussed CPD, support for non specialists or teaching and
learning focussed CPD.
Science Learning Centre CPD was seen to have a bigger impact on decisions to stay
in teaching than other similar CPD. There were higher levels of impact reported for
Science Learning Centre CPD across all types, but particularly subject focussed CPD,
support for non specialists, and teaching and learning focussed CPD. This is the case for
users with low engagement as well as medium and higher levels of engagement, which is a
particularly positive finding.
The impact of this CPD was related to teachers' increased knowledge, motivation and
job satisfaction. Increased knowledge included both subject and pedagogical knowledge.
Even where teachers did not see a direct impact on their decisions about staying in teaching,
other benefits were reported, with many seeing an indirect link in relation particularly to
increased enthusiasm and validation of knowledge and practice.
Career outcomes
Teachers saw significant impacts of Science Learning Centre CPD on job satisfaction,
taking on new responsibilities and moving into new areas of work. Secondary
teachers also saw impacts on promotion. As with retention, the largest impacts were
seen for those with high engagement. In addition the qualitative data identified intermediate
career impacts - including classroom practice, subject knowledge, confidence, broader
career development and leadership. Qualitative data indicated that increased enthusiasm,
confidence and validation of knowledge enabled career development, from the perspective
of teachers themselves.
There were some indications that where teachers chose to take part in Science
Learning Centre CPD explicitly to develop their career, this was more likely to lead to
career impacts. This may relate to findings from other literature that CPD is more effective
when it is tailored to individual need: where teachers are proactive in arranging CPD they
would be able to choose the CPD that best fits their needs.
Teachers reported impacts on changes in their thinking about their future career
plans, even where they saw no direct impacts on career progression. When teachers were
discussing job satisfaction and broader career development, these were often precursors to
them being able to think about and discuss the ways the CPD may have impacted directly
and indirectly on their intentions in relation to staying in the profession and career
progression.
What are the conditions for the greatest impacts on career? Influencing factors
The conditions that were most strongly linked with the highest impacts on teachers'
intentions towards staying in the profession and career progression were:
� The teachers themselves were active in seeking out CPD and motivated
towards progressing their career;
� The CPD was of high quality (identified as a feature of Science Learning Centre
CPD by many teachers in this study) and provided opportunities to network;
7
� The school or organisation provided opportunities for career progression, had
a supportive SLT and had a culture of support for CPD.
In contrast, conditions most strongly linked to low levels of impact on career progression
and intentions towards staying in the profession were:
• The teachers themselves were motivated towards a career in the classroom,
were at a late stage of their career or saw their personal and family life as more
important at this point in their career;
• The CPD itself was not seen to fit the needs of the individual;
• The school or organisation had restricted opportunities for progression, and
had a culture that was not supportive of CPD particularly external, subject-
specific CPD;
• Government policy was viewed negatively.
Conclusions
The study produced a number of suggestions for the Science Learning Centre network to
consider.
Firstly, this study adds to the already powerful body of evidence about the potentially
significant impacts that high quality CPD can bring to organisations and individuals. The
network should continue to utilise this evidence to try to persuade schools of the value
of subject-specific CPD.
Secondly, the network should consider developing a cadre of enthusiasts to act as
advocates in schools to try to engage other colleagues.
Thirdly, the network should focus attention on teachers moving schools and returners
to the profession, who may have a renewed appetite for CPD.
In addition, the study has contributed to the limited body of work on the relationship between
CPD and retention/career outcomes. One outcome is the development of a frame for
conducting such work in the future, drawing from this study, which - linking together the
findings above - indicates how Science Learning Centre and other similar CPD can lead to
retention and career progression, via intermediate outcomes, subject to a set of influencing
factors (see Figure E1 over the page).
8
Figure E1: Model of impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on retention and career
Influencing factors
Wider government policy
School opportunities to progress education phase SLT support and school culture
Personal motivations for engagement approach to CPD motivation towards promotion career stage family issues
Inputs - Science Learning
Centre CPD
quality; networking
opportunities; funding
Intermediate outcomes
Retention
motivation/enthusiasm
job satisfaction
Both
increased subject and
pedagogical knowledge
validation of knowledge
confidence
Career outcomes
improved classroom
practice
broader career development
career aspirations
Retention in the profession
Career progression
9
1. Introduction The overarching aim of the study reported here was to explore the impact of Science
Learning Centres' Continuing Professional Development (CPD) on individual teachers'
career progression and retention within the profession. The study was organised to attempt
to answer three key Research Questions as follows:
RQ1. What are (science) teachers’ views about the importance of professional
development in supporting their career progression and retention?
RQ2. What is the relationship between Science Learning Centres’ CPD and retention and
progression in the profession?
RQ3. What are the career trajectories of teachers who have engaged to differing extents in
Science Learning Centres’ CPD?
RQ1 was answered by a review of literature, a summary of which is presented in Section 3
below. The full review is presented in Appendix1. RQ2 and RQ3 were answered using
primary data collection - a survey and telephone interviews. Data relating to these questions
is presented in Section 4, on retention, Section 5, on career outcomes, and Section 6, on
factors that influence the likelihood of career outcome and retention emerging from Science
Learning Centre CPD.
1.1. A note on terminology
There are some key terms that need to be defined at this point.
By CPD we mean formal and informal support and activities that are designed to help
teachers develop as professionals, including not only taught courses and in-school training,
but also more broadly activities such as coaching, mentoring, self-study and action research.
By career progression we mean changes in job roles that often, but not always, involve
greater status, responsibility and sometimes pay (such as promotion or subject leadership in
a primary school).
We use the term career outcomes to cover both career progression, and wider career
impacts including intermediate career outcomes such as job satisfaction, professional
competence and confidence and career aspirations.
We should also note that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, by retention we refer to the
teaching profession rather than retention in a particular school or other organisation.
To measure level of engagement with Science Learning Centre CPD, we divided the sample
into three user groups as follows: High users who have engaged more than 5 days of
Science Learning Centre provision; Medium users who have engaged in between 1.5 and 5
days of provision and Low users who have engaged in between 0.5 and up to 1.5 days of
provision.
10
2. Methods
2.1. Survey methodology
A sample of 4,054 participants on Science Learning Centre courses (including both national
and regional Science Learning Centre courses) was drawn from the network database. The
initial database was divided into three user types as follows:
• "High users" - those who have engaged more than 5 days of Science Learning Centre
provision
• "Medium users" - those who have engaged in between 1.5 and 5 days of provision
• "Low users" - those who have engaged in between 0.5 and up to 1.5 days of provision
The sample was constructed so that equal numbers were randomly selected from each of
the above user groups (one third of the sample within each group). 3,707 of these had
useable email addresses. An initial email inviting attendees to take part in the survey was
distributed followed by a reminder email to non-respondents in the Autumn term of 2011. In
total, 519 useable responses were received giving a response rate of 14 per cent.
The achieved sample was skewed towards higher users (Table 2.1), probably because they
felt more able to participate in the survey given their higher level of engagement. Given that
returns are skewed towards high users, all analysis is presented separately for each user group.
Table 2.1 Achieved sample profile
User type Number %
High users 311 60%
Medium users 151 29%
Low users 57 11%
Total 519 100%
Overall 60 per cent of the achieved sample were secondary school teachers and 19 per cent
were primary school teachers. Table 2.2 shows that a further 12 per cent of respondents
taught in Further Education Colleges whilst a smaller number taught in special schools and
independent schools (3 per cent and 6 per cent respectively). For the breakdowns by
education phase, special and independent schools are not included due to low numbers.
Table 2.2 Respondent profile
Education phase Number %
Secondary 312 60%
Primary 100 19%
Further Education 61 12%
Special schools 14 3%
Independent 32 6%
Total 519 100%
Table 2.3 shows that two thirds (66 per cent) of respondents within the high user group are
from secondary schools compared with 56 per cent of those in the medium user group and
42 per cent in the low user group. The medium and low user groups contained a slightly
11
higher proportion of primary school respondents compared with the high user group, whilst
within the low user group there was a slightly higher proportion of those from Further
Education colleges and independent schools.
Table 2.3 User group by education phase
Secondary Primary
Further Education
Independent Special schools
Total
User Group
High n 204 51 34 12 10 311
% 66% 16% 11% 4% 3% 100%
Medium n 84 37 17 11 2 151
% 56% 25% 11% 7% 1% 100%
Low n 24 12 10 9 2 57
% 42% 21% 18% 16% 4% 100%
2.2. Telephone interview methodology
2.2.1. Sampling
A mail out was sent to all teachers who had agreed to be contacted as part of the survey
phase inviting them to take part in a telephone interview and offering a £10 High Street
voucher as an incentive to take part and to thank them for their time. A relatively good
response rate was achieved; however it was necessary to send a second mail out in order to
achieve larger numbers. We had aimed for a broad range of representation across a range
of characteristics including: education phase; engagement with the Science Learning
Centres; geographical location; level of seniority; years in the profession and gender.
A total of 25 telephone interviews were conducted with science teachers from our sample. A
break down of teachers' education phase and level of engagement with the science learning
centre CPD is provided below:
Education phase
19 Secondary schools
4 Primary schools
2 FE Colleges
Level of engagement
The telephone interviewees fell in the following user groups (defined by the survey user
groups indicated above).
Low engagement: 2
Medium engagement: 7
High engagement: 16
Despite attempts to achieve a more even sample, and oversampling from the low
engagement group, the sample of teachers is clearly skewed towards those with high
engagement levels. As with the survey, this is perhaps to be expected as those who have
had more CPD would more likely be able to report impact and therefore be more inclined to
take part in the research.
12
2.2.2. Analysis
We were able to ask in-depth questions relating to RQ2 and RQ3 (see Appendix 4), allowing
more detailed discussion of career trajectories (both experienced and intended) and the
impact of engagement with differing Science Learning Centre programmes on both retention
in the profession and career progression.
Analysis of the quantitative data was carried out separately for each user group and is
presented as such for each question. Breakdowns by education phase (secondary, primary,
further education) were conducted within each user group. This analysis is presented in the
main report where appropriate, whilst detailed tables of all questions by education phase are
presented in Appendix 3. Variation in responses by subject specialism was also investigated.
It should be noted here that those specialising in Chemistry tended to indicate more of an
impact on likelihood of staying in teaching, and more of an impact on some aspects of career
compared with those specialising in Biology and Physics. These findings should be treated
with caution however due to low numbers. These breakdowns are presented in Appendix 3
since there were no statistically significant associations. Chi square tests and Cramer's V
strength of association tests were conducted for the bivariate analysis (see Appendix 2 for
an explanation of these tests).
All interview data was transcribed and a thematic analysis conducted. We were able to
utilise a level model of CPD analysis such as that we have used in research for other
national organisations and initiatives including the National College for Leadership of
Schools and Children's Services; National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of
Mathematics; and the Training and Development Agency for Schools (see Coldwell and
Simkins, 2010) that we developed for this study following the review of literature.
13
3. Linking teacher CPD and retention and career: summary of a
review of literature
This is a summary of the main findings of a literature review investigating the possible links
between teachers' CPD and retention within the teaching profession as well as investigating
the effects of CPD on career progression, and wider career outcomes. The full review is
available in Appendix 1.
CPD is not one of the strongest influences on teacher retention; however there is some
evidence that it can be important. This importance is generally in relation to what might be
called 'mediating' factors, especially intentions to stay or leave and general job satisfaction:
there is little evidence available in relation to measured retention per se.
There is a body of mainly qualitative evidence that CPD in general terms can, however,
positively support career progression and wider career outcomes of various kinds.
The literature reviewed indicates that – in addition to quality of the support – there are three
key dimensions that relate to the potential effectiveness of CPD in leading to positive career
outcomes as follows:
• The focus of the support: some focuses (leadership, non-specialist teaching and learning)
were associated most directly with career progression in particular
• The fit to the needs of the teachers – support that was tailored to teachers was more
likely to lead to job satisfaction and sometimes career progression
• The form of the support – there is now a strong body of evidence that sustained,
collaborative professional development, often taking place on site, is associated with
positive changes to teachers’ behaviours and subsequently job satisfaction and other
career development.
CPD is most likely to lead to positive career/retention outcomes when the individual:
• Is motivated to take part
• Is at an appropriate career stage
• Has a positive general view of the potential value of professional development
And when the context the individual is working in:
• Supports engagement with professional development, particularly reflective collaborative,
sustained CPD
• Provides opportunities for career development and progression of various kinds (which
can differ across age phases)
The outcomes of the review enabled us to build a conceptual model of the relationships
between CPD, intermediate and final career outcomes, and personal and school contexts,
which is presented at the end of Appendix 1, and was used to frame the interview study
design.
14
4. Retention
Summary
The perception of the majority of teachers involved in the survey was that they were likely to
stay in teaching for the long term, with over half stating they would stay in the profession for
the rest of their career and another 30 per cent for the next five years. Only 5 per cent were
either undecided or likely to leave. The telephone study sample broadly matched this
distribution. Of those that were intending to leave, factors relating to school, policy and family
were far more likely to have an impact compared with CPD.
Within the survey sample, a majority of respondents felt that their engagement with Science
Learning Centre CPD had had an impact on their likelihood of staying in teaching, and this
was particularly true of users with a high level of engagement with Science Learning Centre
CPD, and less true of those with low levels of engagement.
There were some differences between education phases: high level users in secondary
schools particularly were more likely than other high users to see positive impacts on
likelihood of staying in the profession.
The biggest impacts on retention came from those teachers engaged with subject focussed
CPD, support for non specialists or teaching and learning focussed CPD.
It is worth noting that when comparing science learning centre CPD to other providers CPD,
there were higher levels of impact reported for the science learning centre CPD across all
types, but particularly subject focussed CPD, support for non specialists, and teaching and
learning focussed CPD. This is the case for users with low engagement as well as medium
and higher levels of engagement, which is a particularly positive finding.
The qualitative data shed some light on the reasons for these impacts on retention. The first
main area is in relation to increased knowledge, in terms of both subject and pedagogical
knowledge. Related to this is the second area; increased motivation and job satisfaction.
Even where teachers did not see a direct impact on retention, other benefits were reported,
with many seeing an indirect link in relation particularly to increased enthusiasm and
validation of knowledge and practice, however it is important to note that the qualitative data
showed that CPD in itself was a less important factor than personal and professional factors
in relation to retention.
4.1. Quantitative survey data
Within our sample, teachers were generally positive about their likelihood of staying in the
profession with just over half (51 per cent) stating that they were likely to remain in the
profession for the rest of their career and 31 per cent indicating they would remain for at
least the next five years. A smaller number (eight per cent) were likely to remain beyond the
next year, four per cent were undecided and one per cent were unlikely to remain beyond
the next year. The survey asked a number of questions in relation to the impact (if any) of
Science Learning Centre CPD activity on their likelihood of staying in the profession.
15
Respondents were asked to give an overall rating of any impact on their likelihood of staying
in the profession, and subsequently consider different aspects of professional development
in turn and indicate whether each of these had had an impact (namely: subject focussed
CPD, support for non specialists, teaching and learning focussed CPD, leadership focussed
CPD and support for dealing with new initiatives). They were then asked to compare these
aspects of professional development provided by the Science Learning Centres with CPD
from other sources.
There was a statistically significant association between perceived impact of Science
Learning Centre CPD on likelihood of staying in the profession and frequency of attendance
to Science Learning Centre provision (p<0.01, CV=0.13)1. The majority (57 per cent) of
respondents in the high user group indicated that their involvement in CPD with Science
Learning Centres had made them much more/more likely to stay in teaching, whilst 42 per
cent indicated that they were no more or less likely to stay in teaching. For those in the
medium user group 44 per cent were much more/more likely to stay in teaching.
Respondents in the low user group were less likely to indicate that involvement had made
them more likely to stay in teaching with one third of respondents (33 per cent) stating that
this was the case (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 Impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on likelihood of staying in teaching:
the relationship with level of engagement
1 Statistical test was carried out excluding those "less likely to stay in teaching" because of low
numbers
22%
15%
8%
35%
29%
25%
42%
54%
68%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
High users (n=298)
Medium users (n=147)
Low users (n=53)
Much more likely to stay in
teaching
More likely to stay in teaching
No more or less likely to stay in
teaching
Less likely to stay in teaching
Much less likely to stay in
teaching
16
Within each user group some differences in relation to education phase can be noted. For
respondents in the high user group, those in secondary schools were significantly more likely
(p<0.01, CV=0.21)2 than those in primary schools and those in FE colleges to cite that
involvement in CPD at Science Learning Centres had made them much more/more likely to
stay in teaching; almost two thirds of secondary school respondents indicated that this was
the case compared with 40 per cent of primary school respondents and 42 per cent of those
in FE colleges.
Little difference can be seen between respondents in secondary schools and respondents in
primary schools for those in the medium user group, although a higher proportion of those in
Further Education within this group stated that Science Learning Centre CPD had made
them much more/more likely to stay in teaching (59 per cent compared with 42 per cent in
both secondary and primary schools). This is not statistically significant however.
For those in the low user group a similar proportion of respondents in secondary schools and
further education (39 per cent and 38 per cent respectively) noted that Science Learning
Centre CPD had made them much more/more likely to stay in teaching whilst for low users
in primary schools a lower proportion (18 per cent) indicated that this was the case. This
finding should be treated with caution however since the numbers are too low for a valid
significance test (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2 Impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on likelihood of staying in teaching:
the relationship with education phase
2 Significance test compresses categories so that "much more likely/likely" is compared to "no more or
less likely" due to low numbers.
25%
16%
13%
15%
17%
18%
4%
9%
13%
39%
24%
29%
27%
25%
41%
35%
9%
25%
35%
59%
58%
56%
58%
35%
61%
82%
63%
1%
1%
6%
0% 50% 100%
Secondary
Primary
Further Education
Secondary
Primary
Further Education
Secondary
Primary
Further Education
Hig
h u
sers
Me
diu
m u
sers
Low
use
rs
Much more likely to
stay in teaching
More likely to stay in
teaching
No more or less
likely to stay in
teaching
Less likely to stay in
teaching
Much less likely to
stay in teaching
(n = 196)
(n = 49)
(n = 31)
(n = 82)
(n = 36)
(n = 17)
(n = 23)
(n = 11)
(n = 8)
17
Most respondents had undertaken some form of subject focussed CPD or teaching and
learning CPD. A lower proportion had received support for non-specialists, leadership
focussed CPD and support for dealing with new initiatives (31 per cent, 46 per cent and 33
per cent respectively stated they had not received Science Learning Centre support in this
area). For those who had been engaged in these aspects of CPD, respondents were more
likely to cite that subject focussed CPD, support for non-specialists and teaching and
learning focussed CPD were most likely to have a positive impact on their likelihood of
staying in teaching. A slightly lower proportion believed this to be the case for leadership
focussed CPD and support for dealing with new initiatives.
There was a statistically significant association between level of engagement with Science
Learning Centre provision and reported impact on likelihood of staying in teaching for each
of the aspects of CPD apart from "support for dealing with new initiatives" (see Table 4.1
below for statistical values). For each aspect those in the high user group were the most
likely to indicate a positive impact on likelihood of staying in teaching whilst those in the low
user group were the least likely. In terms of subject focussed CPD and support for non-
specialists, there is a similar pattern of differences across the user groups. For teaching and
learning focussed CPD there is less difference between the high user group and the medium
user group whereas the low user group for this aspect are somewhat less likely to indicate a
positive impact.
With regards to leadership focussed CPD, those in the higher group were somewhat more
likely to state a positive impact compared with both the medium and low user group. For
support for dealing with new initiatives those in the low user group were less likely to indicate
a positive impact although this was not statistically significant (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3 Impact of aspects of CPD on likelihood of staying in teaching: the
relationship with level of engagement
37%
36%
40%
41%
48%
51%
39%
60%
54%
59%
55%
56%
65%
68%
68%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Support for dealing with new
initiatives
Leadership focussed CPD
Teaching and learning
focussed CPD
Support for non specialists
Subject focussed CPD
High users
Medium
users
Low users
(n = 281)
(n = 131) (n = 42)
(n = 180) (n = 76)
(n = 27)
(n = 252) (n = 118)
(n = 35)
(n = 133) (n = 61)
(n = 25)
(n = 178) (n = 79)
(n = 27)
18
Table 4.1 Statistical values for aspects of CPD by level of engagement
Aspect of professional development CPD p Cramer's V
Subject focussed CPD p<0.05 CV=0.13
Support for non-specialists p<0.01 CV=0.19
Teaching and learning focussed CPD p<0.05 CV=0.14
Leadership focussed CPD p<0.05 CV=0.18
Support for dealing with new initiatives NS NS
Respondents were asked to compare aspects of Science Learning Centre CPD with CPD
provided from other sources. Subject focussed CPD and support for non-specialists were the
aspects most likely to be deemed to have more impact than CPD from other sources. Very
few respondents indicated that Science Learning Centre CPD had less impact than other
provision of its kind (see Appendix 3 for full table).
There was a statistically significant association between level of engagement with Science
Learning Centre provision and respondents' perception of subject focussed CPD compared
with subject focussed CPD from other sources (p<0.05, CV=0.13); a higher proportion of
those in the high user group indicated that Science Learning Centre subject focussed CPD
had more impact than subject focussed CPD from other sources compared with those in the
other user groups (74 per cent of high users deemed this to be the case compared with 58
per cent of medium users and 61 per cent of low users).
Some differences between user groups can be noted for other aspects of CPD although
these are not statistically significant. In terms of support for non-specialists, the majority of
respondents in each user group stated that Science Learning Centre CPD had more impact
than other provision of this kind (70 per cent of high users, 53 per cent of medium users and
62 per cent of low users). Three fifths of respondents in the high user group noted that
Science Learning Centre teaching and learning focussed CPD had more impact than other
provision of this kind whilst around half of those in the medium and low user groups deemed
this to be the case (47 per cent of medium users and 55 per cent of low users). With regards
to leadership focussed CPD, just over half of those in the high user group stated a higher
impact than other provision of this kind whilst 43 per cent of those in the medium user group
and 31 per cent of low users stated that this was the case. The majority of high users (58 per
cent) stated that support for dealing with new initiatives had more impact than other
provision of this kind whilst a similar proportion of medium and low users stated this (47 per
cent and 48 per cent respectively) (Figure 4.4).
19
Figure 4.4 Percentage agreement that Science Learning Centre CPD had more impact
on likelihood of staying in teaching than other similar provision
48%
31%
55%
62%
62%
47%
43%
47%
53%
58%
58%
51%
60%
70%
74%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Support for dealing with new
initiatives
Leadership focussed CPD
Teaching and learning focussed CPD
Support for non-specialists
Subject focussed CPD
High users
Medium users
Low users
(n = 241)
(n = 114)
(n = 37)
(n = 148) (n = 64)
(n = 21)
(n = 216)
(n = 109)
(n = 47)
(n = 16)
(n = 148) (n = 66)
(n = 21)
(n = 97)
(n = 29)
20
4.2. Qualitative data: interviews and open survey questions
4.2.1. Overview: intentions relating to staying in the profession overall
Of the 25 science teachers we interviewed almost four fifths were very likely to stay in
teaching for the long term: 15 were planning to stay within the teaching profession, and four
more indicated they were very likely to stay. Of the rest, five talked about their future in more
uncertain terms, with some stating that they felt it was unlikely they would remain in teaching.
One teacher had left the profession when the interview took place. This distribution was
more or less in line with the quantitative data.
4.2.2. The direct impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on teachers
likelihood of staying in the profession
Reasons for a lack of direct impact
In line with previous research into the relationship between CPD and retention, and the open
comments form the survey, the majority of science teachers interviewed felt that the Science
Learning Centre CPD had had no direct impact on their decision to stay in teaching (17).
There were three main sets of reasons for this.
For most of these teachers (10), this was not necessarily a statement about the quality of the
CPD, but predominantly due to them having no intentions to leave the profession
regardless of CPD.
'I love my job, it hasn’t changed intentions, it cements it because you feel you are
doing a better job.' (15)
'I have to say I think I'm going to stay in teaching no matter what. I absolutely love it.
So probably no baring. Even though it was very useful, I'd be staying in teaching
anyway.' (19)
Of the remaining telephone interviewees who had stated that the CPD had no impact on
their retention, five of these stated that other factors, professional or personal would
have a much larger influence on their decision to remain in teaching or not (again, in
line with previous literature):
'The course is only 10 per cent of what I deliver; unfortunately the 90 per cent is what
is going to cause me to leave the teaching profession.' (5)
'My life outside of work is more likely to dictate whether I stay in teaching.' (25)
There were additional useful comments on this from the few teachers who took part in the
survey who were considering leaving:
"I am leaving the profession, but the reasons cannot be addressed by the SLC
[Science Learning Centre] work. SLCs actually help teacher deliver better, more
inspiring lessons; unfortunately, the systems in place in schools and nationally do not.
In fact, it is my experience that management in school, exam boards, and the various
quangos and other organisations actually make life more difficult." (Survey comment)
21
"The problems in teaching are deep rooted and [Science Learning Centres] cannot
help that, what it does do is help science teachers to be more creative, think outside
the box and have a little more confidence." (survey comment)
Our review of the literature (House of Commons 2004; Ladd 2007; Hobson et al 2007; Drew
et al 2008; Williams 2010) indicated workload and pupil behaviour were key reasons for
leaving the profession. Pupil behaviour was not a major reason cited in our study. The open
responses to the survey focussed on policy pressures on curriculum, targets, inspection;
school pressures including unrealistic expectations from school management, bullying,
workload and work/life imbalance and personal and family commitments as potential
reasons for leaving. For the six teachers in our interview sample considering leaving,
workload was cited as a key factor, due to an increase in pressure and stress.
Two science teachers in the interview sample, however, discussed how the CPD they had
experienced had not impacted on them sufficiently to influence their decision. This
was because they had not been able to apply the CPD to practice due to cost or practicality:
'It was assuming that every school has the most up to date technology to be able to
do the things that they were showing us… it was pie in the sky.' (17)
'You know my projects have to cost pence really per child and that was going to be
more pounds.' (21)
Reasons for direct impact
A small number of teachers in the interview sample felt that the CPD had either helped their
decision to stay teaching a little (four respondents) or had had a large impact on their
retention intentions (four respondents).
The ways in which the Science Learning Centre CPD had helped fell into two closely related
broad areas. The first of these was in relation to increased knowledge. For some teachers,
this helped them feel more effective educators:
'If there wasn’t the opportunity to update knowledge then it would be much harder to
continue being an effective and current educator.' (13)
For one teacher increased knowledge linked to teaching physics was crucial:
'I would say 100 per cent definitely. I mean my future is very uncertain at the moment.
I'm not sure if I need to move schools, if I'm just stagnating after 5 years or whether
this just isn't really for me. But if it wasn't for the SASP then I would have probably
have left teaching a couple of years ago.'(18)
This was also true of some of the five teachers that felt that Science Learning Centre CPD
had made a major impact on their decision to remain in teaching:
'SLC efforts will likely increase staying in teaching for teachers like me who are not
specialists in the subjects because of the enrichment they offer in the understanding
of the contents as well as the new strategies that they show in tackling certain
topics…' (survey comment)
22
As these quotations indicate, this increased knowledge is important because it enables
teachers to feel confident in their abilities as effective educators and this links to the other
broad area discussed next. For three of those telephone interviewees who felt that the CPD
had helped a little in their intentions to stay in teaching and three who it had helped a lot, the
explanations for this were that the CPD had increased their motivation and job
satisfaction in relation to teaching as a career:
'The impact is a motivational things - it stimulates me to continue and put as much
effort in as I do.' (3 - Some impact)
'Yes, I hit a bit of a low, feeling tired and jaded with it, and now doing this and getting
more ideas it helps you see the future in a better light, feel a bit more upbeat about it.
It does help me decide to remain in teaching yes. Because I start varying what I am
doing its better for me, I get more out of it and the children do so you feel better about
what you have done.' (9)
This was also true of several survey respondents:
'I now have a Head of Science position and have vastly more confidence as a result
of attending the course. The course and the job that followed on came at a time when
I was more than a little disillusioned with the way Science Education has been going.
As such, it has had a very significant impact on keeping me in teaching.' (survey
respondent)
The Retention Case Study below outlines how Science Learning Centre CPD can have a
positive influence on retention in the profession for these reasons; yet it cannot overcome
challenges in teaching that have a much bigger influence.
23
Retention Case Study
Teacher 18 has been teaching for 5 years in a semi-rural comprehensive school. She is one
of 10 teachers in the Science department who all teach across the sciences: 'having more
continuity for the kids is better than having a specialist, that's what my boss thinks anyway'.
This teacher reported being personally driven to complete this particular CPD in order to
strengthen knowledge of one aspect of science: 'I really, really wanted to be better at
Physics.' Improving subject knowledge in Physics was also said to be a performance
management target. In terms of the school context, this teacher talked about feeling
supported by the SLT in terms of CPD: 'They are very good at that'.
Teacher 18 would be described as having a high amount of engagement with the science
learning centres CPD; this was due to engaging in SASP and attending two other courses;
'I've had a much higher engagement with the SLC than average.'
Looking firstly at the impact on practice, teacher 18 was able to report a change in
approaches to teaching as well as an increase in knowledge and confidence:
'It made me re-examine pedagogy, not just teaching but how I teach. That was pretty huge.
It's meant that my subject knowledge is inevitably improved…I 'm far more confident.'
When asked about the effects on their desire to stay in the teaching profession, the
response was clear that the CPD had made a huge difference:
'I would say 100 per cent definitely. I mean my future is very uncertain at the moment… But
if it wasn't for the SASP then I would have probably have left teaching a couple of years
ago'.
Despite the positive impact reported, the school context is clearly playing a larger role in the
decision of this teacher as to longer term retention in teaching:
'I work in a very challenging school and there's a lot of issues, there's a lot of politics around
at the moment…the context I'm working in at the moment has definitely hindered. It makes
me think I want to leave teaching.'
Overall, then, the reported impacts of the CPD are very positive, including significant
developments of teacher practice and a large impact on short term retention; however the
particular school context may well override this in the future.
24
4.2.3. Indirect and intermediate effects of Science Learning Centre CPD on
staying in the profession
Although most teachers in the telephone study felt that the CPD did not directly impact on
their decision to remain in teaching, most felt it had helped in some way in relation to
retention, largely - again - due to this effect on their motivation as a teacher. For example,
several teachers talked about seeing teaching as a profession that 'grinds you down' or
discussed a feeling of 'plodding along' that had been partially remedied by the CPD,
providing much needed enthusiasm and a motivation boost:
'You often feel like you are on your own in a primary school and you lose momentum,
because you get bogged down with everything else and these are just really good
opportunities to get to be with other people who feel enthusiastic about science and
want to do something with it, rather than getting ground down with the other stuff you
do in school, we get bogged down with standards.' (9)
Other factors mentioned by interviewees that may indirectly help with retention included the
Science Learning Centre CPD acting as validation of their knowledge/practice:
'I enjoy the lessons more knowing I was doing the right thing. They are really
valuable and it gives you renewed enthusiasm in the classroom.' (6)
'I realised I was as knowledgeable as everyone else there.' (11)
'Its only since I have been on these courses that I think I have something to offer and
I can lead people to change the way its taught across the school, before I was in the
dark about what I could offer because I had become science lead by default and
wasn't an expert in anyway but now I feel I have a level of expertise to pass on, its
given me a lot of confidence as a middle leader, I feel I am doing my current role
properly now.' (14)
The CPD was also praised for inspiring teachers with practical activities which can
potentially make lessons more enjoyable, and conceivably therefore increase job satisfaction:
'The SASP course was fantastic, it showed me there were some hilarious things I
could do- one of the things they did was to put it from the pupils perspective and tell
you the difficulties that students have in understanding different parts and how you
might get around that using demonstrations, practicals, story telling, electronic
simulations - that has had a direct impact upon the enjoyment my students get from
being in my lesson.' (3)
'The practical ideas, being able to do the exciting things in school, being able to do it
safely. Simple easy things that have an impact on children, getting them excited.' (9)
'A lot more confidence and I came back with a bank of practical resources which
have helped me and the department and enabled us to share ideas.' (6)
A similar set of 'indirect career impacts' were identified by survey respondents in open
questions, as Table 4.2 below indicates:
25
Table 4.2 Indirect effects on retention (from open survey comments)
Number of Responses
1. Provided insights into new initiatives, local and national developments, ideas, and resources
57
2. Boosted confidence and reduced anxiety 40 3. Developed their pedagogy 33 4. Opportunities to share and network with other professionals 30 5. Renewed enthusiasm for teaching/ their job 20 6. Renewed their enthusiasm for the subject 14 7. Helped them impart knowledge to others 9 8. Helped make them feel appreciated and valued as professionals 5 9. Enhanced their job prospects 5 10. Raised their profile in their school 2 11. Motivated them to continue their HE 2 12. Helped them relate theory to practice 2 13. Helped them develop empathy with students 1 14. Impacted on their role 1 15. Developed their personal skills 1
Note that some respondents identified more than one factor.
There are many overlaps between these indirect effects on retention with intermediate
career development impacts discussed in section 5.3.
26
5. Career Outcomes
Summary
The survey study found significant impacts, from the perspective of teachers, of Science
Learning Centre CPD on aspects of career progression including taking on new
responsibilities and moving into new areas of work. There were also impacts on promotion;
these were much more clearly seen in relation to secondary teachers. As with retention, the
largest impacts were seen for those with high engagement and the lowest levels for those
with low engagement.
In addition the qualitative data identified intermediate career impacts - including classroom
practice, subject knowledge, job satisfaction, confidence, broader career development and
leadership. Of these, the quantitative study also looked at job satisfaction, and indicated a
particularly high level of impact here.
The qualitative data indicated that these outcomes were often related to how the Science
Learning Centre CPD impacted on career development. Qualitative data indicated that
increased enthusiasm, confidence and validation of knowledge enabled career development.
There was some indication that where teachers chose to take part in Science Learning
Centre CPD explicitly to develop their career, this was likely to lead to career impacts. This
may relate to the literature around CPD being more effective when it is tailored to individual
need (e.g. Soulsby and Swain, 2003): where teachers are proactive in arranging CPD they
would be able to choose the CPD that best fits their needs. Even where there were no direct
impacts, teachers reported a change in their thinking about their future career plans. When
teachers were discussing job satisfaction and broader career development, these were often
precursors to them being able to think about and discuss the ways the CPD may have
impacted directly and indirectly on their retention and career progression.
Where there were no impacts, the qualitative data indicated that reasons related more to
lack of opportunities in school and personal circumstances and preferences than the quality
of the CPD, which relates to Section 6 on Influencing Factors.
5.1. Career Progression: quantitative survey data
5.1.1. Perceived impacts on career progression
Figure 5.1 below indicates that, overall, respondents within each user group tended to
indicate that Science Learning Centre CPD had had the most impact on taking on new
responsibilities whilst fewer respondents indicated an impact on promotion.
27
Figure 5.1 Impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on aspects of career: the
relationship with level of engagement (percentage stating positive impact)
For each aspect of career there was a significant association between level of engagement
and perceived impact (see Table 5.1 for statistical values). In terms of promotion, 38 per
cent of high users indicated a positive impact whilst a smaller number (16 per cent) of low
users stated a positive impact. The majority of high users (70 per cent) cited a positive
impact on taking on new responsibilities compared with half of those in the low user group.
There was slightly less difference between the user groups with regards to moving into new
areas of work with 61 per cent of high users and 44 per cent of low users indicating a
positive impact.
Table 5.1 Statistical values for professional development aspect by level of
engagement
Professional development aspect p Cramer's V
Promotion p<0.01 CV=0.17 Taking on new responsibilities p<0.01 CV=0.15 Moving into new areas of work p<0.05 CV=0.13
Looking at variations in perceived impact on career by education phase, there is a significant
association between perceived impact on promotion and education phase for those in the
high user group (p<0.01, CV=0.21). Those in secondary schools were the most likely to state
a positive impact on promotion (45 per cent compared with 21 per cent of those in primary
schools and 26 per cent of those in further education). This could be partially explained by
the greater opportunity for paid responsibilities in secondary schools (Figure 5.2).
44%
50%
16%
50%
60%
26%
61%
70%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Moving in to new areas of work
Taking on new responsibilities
Promotion
High
Medium
Low
(n = 262)
(n = 125)
(n =45)
(n = 282)
(n = 139)
(n = 46)
(n = 265)
(n = 129)
(n = 45)
28
Figure 5.2 Impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on promotion: the relationship with
education phase (percentage stating positive impact)
5.1.2.
5.1.3. Measured Career Progression
Respondents were asked to give their job role at the time when they first attended a Science
Learning Centre course and to give their current job role. The list of pre and current job roles
is shown, these roles were recoded into an 8 point scale (see Table 5.2 below) so that any
progression could be measured quantitatively.
Table 5.2 Pre Science Learning Centre and Current job roles
Recoded category
group
Pre Science Learning Centre
role
Current role
n % n %
Trainee teacher 1 42 9% 2 0%
Pre threshold classroom teacher 2 161 35% 84 19%
Post threshold classroom teacher 3 71 15% 88 20%
TLR1 or equiv with some resp. for science 4 39 8% 53 12%
TLR1 or equiv with some resp. other than for science 4 8 2% 21 5%
TLR2 or equiv with some resp. for science 5 45 10% 75 17%
TLR2 or equiv with some resp. other than for science 5 20 4% 24 5%
AST 5 9 2% 16 4%
Paid SEN 5 9 2% 8 2%
Assistant head 6 3 1% 11 2%
Deputy head 7 6 1% 7 2%
Headteacher 8 2 0% 2 0%
Don't know 8 2% 7 2%
Other 37 8% 51 11%
Total 460 100% 449 100%
Any change was divided into three groups as shown in Table 5.3. There was no significant
association between level of engagement and measured career progression, although a
slightly lower proportion of those in the low user group had made a "large" progression.
Career progression tended to be associated with education phase, i.e. those in secondary
schools were more likely than those in primary schools to have progressed, which is in line
with the findings presented in Figure 5.2 above.
45%
21%
26%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Had a positive impact on promotion
(high user group)
Secondary
Primary
Further Education
(n = 172)
(n = 42)
(n = 27)
29
Table 5.3 Relationship between measured Career progression and level of
engagement with Science Learning Centre CPD
Large
progression (%) Small
progression (%) No progression
(%) Total n
High 17% 32% 51% 206
Medium 18% 23% 59% 93
Low 6% 34% 59% 32
5.2. Career Progression: qualitative data from interviews and open survey
questions
As noted in the introduction, by 'career progression' we mean career changes that often but
not always include changes in status and/or pay including promotion and change of
specialism. Using this definition, 15 telephone interviewees suggested that the Science
Learning Centre CPD did have or might have an effect on their career progression. We were
able to categorise these responses by the amount of impact the CPD had. This was split
evenly, with five teachers stating that the CPD had some direct impact on their career
progression; five concluded that it may have contributed to progression, and a further five
discussed the ways that it may well contribute in the future.
When looking at the responses, there is a somewhat mixed picture as to the ways that the
CPD had impacted, or may impact in the future, upon teachers' careers. Five teachers felt
that their involvement in CPD activity had showed their passion/enthusiasm for the job
and had showcased their initiative to want to develop, which in some cases had led to a
furthering of their career:
'I put a lot of work into the gap task and showed I was keen to learn and dedicated to
the job.' (6)
'I think absolutely because unofficially the principal said it was because I showed so
much initiative and if I say I'll do something I'll do it properly was the reason he really
wanted to keep me. This course has just helped to show that off really.' (19)
As with the impacts on retention, five telephone interviewees talked about an increase in
confidence that had come from taking part in CPD, sometimes related to validating their
knowledge:
'It made me believe in myself that I could go for promotion.' (11)
'Now I feel I have a level of expertise to pass on, its given me a lot of confidence as a
middle leader, I feel I am doing my current role properly now, so going into
performance management or looking into going up pay scales I can say I have done
these things and a lot of what I have done has been a direct results of the training I
have been on.' (14)
'The confidence I got from feeding back helped and allowed me to join a working
party on a skills based curriculum and due to this I was awarded TLR for
30
development of new KS4 curriculum in science. The status with peers - if you are
delivering training that is useful and managers will be aware.' (15)
Two telephone interviewees spoke of how the CPD had enhanced their career through
allowing them to move into different areas. For one this was the SASP course giving them
the opportunity to move into physics teaching:
'I would be happy to teach physics just like chemistry -if an opportunity arose for me
to specialise more in the teaching of physics.' (3)
The other was given extra responsibility for part of the curriculum which was felt to be in
large part a result of the CPD at the National Science Learning Centre:
'Really useful because we started the thematic curriculum at the school being able to
use those skills really helped and I ended up getting responsibility it.' (22)
This teacher also spoke of this CPD being the 'seed' to starting a master's qualification.
For the remaining telephone interviewees, one stated that the course had helped in giving
'something to talk about at interview' (12) similarly another felt that the head had been
impressed with the contents of the course. Finally one teacher spoke of being respected
more within the department
'I would probably say I've got more status within the department because I'm our sole
Physics specialist now.' (18)
Although some telephone interviewees had said that CPD may affect their progression,
some of these also stated that this was not a major factor for them, and that they were more
interested in maintaining their current position, being a 'good' teacher and not moving into
SLT:
'I don’t have any aspirations to be head of department I want to be a classroom
teacher,'...for me its about being enthusiastic, I think that is what the profession lacks
a bit now, so doing fun engaging lessons and keeping me interested so the kids are
interested.' (12)
The open responses to the survey indicated a wide range of career progression outcomes,
too, including promotion (7 responses), leading on or developing school-wide initiatives (2
responses) training others (8 responses) and developing their role (7 responses). In
particular, several survey respondents discussed increased their career aspirations, with a
number thinking about their career options and progression opportunities, and staring to
apply for promotion:
'Undertaking the New and Prospective Science Leaders course is already having a
positive impact on my career aspirations and ideas.' (survey comment)
'SLC has given me the confidence to apply for posts and move upwards in my career
development.' (survey comment)
'Having one a course on being Head of Science whilst I was acting Head of
Department I now feel more confident to apply to other schools.' (survey comment)
31
10 teachers involved in the telephone study, and 18 open survey comments, stated that
there had been no impact on their career progression as a result of Science Learning Centre
CPD. However for the majority of these (7) it was factors other than the CPD which had
resulted in the lack of impact insofar as they felt they had nowhere to progress to. We return
to these reasons in Section 6.
The Career Progression Case Study, below, demonstrates some of the relationships
between Science Learning Centre CPD, intermediate career outcomes and career
progression.
Career Progression Case Study
Teacher 22 worked at a large catholic secondary school in a team of 12 science teachers.
This teacher reported a positive school ethos in relation to CPD and support: 'Very much a
team…very willing to share ideas with each other and willing to take new things on
board…it's quite open minded and forward thinking about things.'
Engagement in CPD consisted of a two day residential at the National Science Learning
Centre 'doing about Action Research, and then we came back about 12 months later [further
2 days] and reviewed what we'd done over that period'.
In terms of Intermediate outcomes, teacher 22 reported a change in teaching approaches
and a desire to utilise direct learning in the form of action research:
'It did make quite an impact on how I taught my Science lessons, the way I dealt with
colleagues when I went back to work and that being able to take the initiative, to actually go
away and try something new and innovative and evaluate it and use like action research'.
Teacher 22 also saw a direct impact on their career progression as a result; within a year of
going to York she was given a TLR responsibility point for thematic curriculum. 'Oh definitely
directly I would say because it gave me that confidence and the skills to be able to trial new
approaches… we started the thematic curriculum at the school, being able to use those skills
really helped and I ended up getting responsibility for it'. One of the speakers at York also
encouraged this teacher to publish papers. 'Any one teacher whose done any research in
their school can publish what they've done in this magazine and it made me think; yeah
there are possibilities of doing things'.
When asked about other factors related to retention and career progression, it was external
factors that could potentially influence their decision:
'The only thing that would put me off staying in teaching is the political situation in schools.
Academy conversion would make me think twice about it because I went into teaching to
teach to work in the public sector, almost like a vocation'.
32
5.3. Intermediate career impacts
In the same way that many respondents noted intermediate retention outcomes, a number
also referred to intermediate career impacts i.e. outcomes that, whilst not directly related to
career progression, were nevertheless important in relation to their career, and may relate to
career progression in the future (for some of this group at least).The key intermediate career
impacts identified in the telephone study related to six different areas: classroom practice,
subject knowledge, job satisfaction, confidence, broader career development and
leadership.
As may be expected the largest number of telephone interviewees (19) cited an impact on
their classroom practice coming from the CPD they had experienced, for example gaining
more ideas to change or improve their ways of teaching:
'Every week I use some aspect of what I did there. It's changed the ways I approach
science completely, I have re planned everything since the course, given me a load
of new ideas, I came back and ran a staff meeting about it. One of the parts of the
course was an impact investigation - I interviewed pupils at the time and asked for
their opinions they were really positive about it and enjoyed the different ways of
approaching it.' (14)
'I have high ability groups so can use the things I have learnt to challenge them. Its
made them a lot more effective, my top set have made comments about how much
they are learning more this year.' (15)
Some of the interviewees spoke about making their delivery more interesting or accessible
through the use of practicals, as the below quotes illustrate:
'It pushed me to be risk taking in my teaching style and change to see if I could teach
better.' (7)
'Using demonstrations, practicals, story telling, electronic simulations - that has had a
direct impact upon the enjoyment my students get from being in my lesson.' (3)
These comments anecdotally show an impact on pupils' enjoyment and possibly
performance.
Twelve interviewees explicitly mentioned that Science Learning Centre CPD had improved
their confidence.
'Being able to look at it from a distance with people who've had loads of experience
gives you that sort of confidence to go back and sort of think right I'm going to have a
go at this.' (22)
'Definitely made me a lot more confident, more willing to do physics demos. More
confidence to work with technician to try things out.' (25)
Of the six telephone interviewees who stated that the CPD had improved their subject
knowledge, four of these had taken part in a physics course, either SASP or physics for
non-specialists, and one in a biology course.
33
Impacts relating to the development of leadership skills were reported by eight interviewees.
This was predominantly related to dissemination of ideas through the school in inset days.
Eight telephone interviewees alluded to a positive impact on their job satisfaction,
discussing how teaching had become more enjoyable:
'I feel that I enjoy lessons more, we ask kids to do quizzes for us and they are now
more able to do those well, they get involved and remember it, its more satisfying to
know that you teach and they have actually got it.' (9)
We should note here that job satisfaction was also cited as an intermediate factor in relation
to retention much more often (see section 4.2). The survey found that a majority of
respondents in all engagement groups cited a positive impact on satisfaction with career,
with particularly large majorities in high and medium user groups (p<0.01, CV = 0.21) (figure
5.3).
Figure 5.3: Impact on satisfaction with career by engagement with Science Learning
Centre Provision
We categorised four telephone interviewees' comments as relating to broader career
development, for example;
'Other things I find it useful is that I've gone for 2 internal posts and on both
occasions when I'm asked how have I developed maybe leadership in children… I've
been able to use examples from Eco club and from BT young scientists…and those
clubs would not have been as successful if it hadn't have been for doing that course I
did in York.' (19)
'To become qualified to teach A level physics gave me an opportunity to explore if I
want to move more towards physics and away from chemistry.' (3)
88%
78%
63%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfaction with my career
High
Medium
Low
(n = 289)
(n = 141)
(n = 49)
34
6. Influencing factors
Summary
This section examines the factors that influence the likelihood of Science Learning Centre
CPD impacting on retention or career outcomes.
The quality of the CPD was generally seen to be very high and this was a significant
contributing factor in its impact. In addition to the quality, the time and opportunities for
networking along with the funds available to take part were also important. However there
were numerous other factors that influenced the potential for positive outcomes, these could
be personal, work related or related to wider issues especially education policy.
Key personal factors referred to include the motivations individuals had for engaging in CPD,
with those who engaged to further their career in some way having more positive outcomes.
Related to this was how active individuals were in pursuing CPD, and motivations towards
promotion. Other personal factors were career stage and family-related issues, such as
wanting to work part time to care for children.
Key school-related factors included the opportunities for progression, often restricted in
smaller schools (especially primary schools), and education phase per se (with secondary
teachers more positive about impacts). Perhaps the most important school-related factor is
the support of SLT and the related culture and organisation of the school.
Finally, the key wider factor was government policy, mentioned as a negative factor in
relation to retention by a number of teachers.
It will have become apparent from reading the previous sections that a range of factors
appeared to have an influence on the likelihood of Science Learning Centre CPD leading to
retention and career outcomes. In this section we pull these together under four broad
headings: factors related to the CPD itself, personal factors, school related factors and wider
contextual factors.
6.1. Factors related to the CPD itself
6.1.1. The quality of CPD
Nearly all of those interviewed positively mentioned the quality of Science Learning Centre
CPD, from the facilities and the contents to the staffs' knowledge and experience.
'I have had bits from AQA and OCN but not on the same scale. SLC is miles, miles
better, its brilliant, I gushed about it for a long time when I got back. It's a spectacular
location, they have brilliant facilities, the people teaching it are brilliant.' (13)
'We had this really brilliant Ecologist…and she'd done absolutely stacks of research
on all sorts of things and she'd done Education and Science teaching in
Sweden…and she was great…she was sort of like really encouraging us to… go
ahead and do this and I think at the time it was sort of the boost I needed to sort of
have the self confidence to start looking at my career and applying for promotion.' (22)
35
Some teachers talked about being able to take part in training away from the school making
them feel almost pampered; this for one teacher had acted as something of an antidote to
the sometimes bad press related to the teaching profession:
'It felt like a bit of holiday from school [laughs] because the facilities were really good
and the food was really good…it was nice as a Science teacher… to feel spoilt. All
my other colleagues said sometimes as a Science teacher you feel that there's lots of
stuff in the press about you getting knocked and Science teachers aren't very
good…but to be able to go somewhere where you've got this fantastic new building
with all these super facilities, the staff are really nice and it made you feel appreciated
as a Science teacher.' (22)
A small minority of teachers however felt that the CPD was not as helpful to them as it could
have been. For one teacher this was due to it not being pitched at FE teachers:
'The SLC and even the ASE [Association for Science Education] - they are very
school related and there's so little out there for college and I don't think colleges are
sort of hooked in as much as they might be.' (16)
For another it was that some of the ideas were unfeasible with the school's budget.
6.1.2. Networking with others
The second key aspect mentioned related to being given the time and opportunity to meet
other teachers. Teachers mostly valued being able to share ideas:
'With the SLC you get a whole range of ideas from a variety of experiences and
budgets and you make contacts - it hugely enthuses what you are doing in the
classroom. You get a completely separate set of ideas and practice - you broaden it
at the NSLC [National Science Learning Centre] from outside your LA and when its
regional then you build stronger links there which is great, it makes a huge
difference.' (8)
'One of the best bits was being able to share ideas about teaching and practicals with
other people on the course. It's important in a college where there isn't a number of
teachers you can share ideas with so it's brilliant to go out and talk to other people
who are teaching it.' (13)
6.1.3. Funding
A large number of teachers commented on the importance of the funds made available from
the Science Learning Centre in providing access to training. Many teachers cited the
impact/enthuse award as a reason for their level of engagement with the Science Learning
Centre
'Because we're a college the college don't actually get a supply teacher in for me so
we did actually have a bit of money from the college. So we got a new video
microscope and some electrophoresis equipment [for the separation of DNA] for the
college which is really good.' (20)
'The impact awards, our training funds were tiny, so the SLC have been major - they
are cheap, we make profit on it, they are the best ones.' (6)
36
However this was often more than simply a bonus or a driver, but described by some as a
necessity to be able to access CPD as a teacher:
'If the college had to pay the money I would not have gone, that’s the situation.' (5)
6.1.4. Level of engagement with Science Learning Centre CPD
Those teachers who reported higher levels of impact typically had medium or high levels of
engagement with Science Learning Centre CPD. We will go on to discuss this in the
conclusion, since whilst the causal relationship is hard to establish, it is an important finding
in its own right.
6.1.5. Types of CPD
In general, the survey found that subject-focussed CPD, support for nonspecialists and
teaching and learning-focussed CPD had the largest perceived impacts on retention,
compared with the other forms of CPD we looked at. The qualitative data found that SASP
was mentioned in relation to a number of career-related outcomes. This suggests further
research in this area may be useful.
6.2. Individual factors
6.2.1. Motivations for undertaking CPD
This was an important personal factor. Six of the teachers who took part in an interview
mentioned career progression when asked about either their reasons for engaging, or their
expectations of the CPD.
Of these, four talked about their motivation for undertaking CPD being linked directly to a
promotion:
'I thought previously I may go into SLT so I made sure things I was doing were giving
a whole school perspective not just science.' (10)
'I think it was just a stepping stone to get to where I wanted to be. I always knew what
I wanted to do because a woman at my old school had the job I wanted. It was a
matter of I want that job how do I get there.' (17)
These teachers all stated that they had progressed in their careers after doing the CPD and
noted a link, either direct or indirect. For one teacher it was about securing a permanent
teaching post:
'I've now got a permanent contract but back then I was only temporary and I suppose
I was trying to show initiative and trying to impress to make sure that they wanted to
keep me on.' (19)
Again this teacher stated that it had been the initiative shown by doing the CPD that had
'unofficially' helped to secure the job. Another teacher hoped the SASP course would help in
moving to teach other areas of science:
'I thought it may open the door to teaching physics A level.' (7)
37
Related to this, when decisions to engage in CPD were active instead of passive, i.e. it is the
individual teachers' decision to engage; teachers were more likely to report impacts on their
retention or career progression. One teacher suggested the Science Learning Centre
working with the schools to encourage engagement:
'I think the SLC is something that could push the quality of teaching forward in our
schools but then you need support form the school, people to be proactive to access
the courses.' (15)
6.2.2. Motivations towards promotion
Some teachers had no desire to progress towards promotion, which sometimes linked to
lack of opportunity (see section 6.3.1 below)
'I don't have anywhere to progress- we only have 4 classes, I don’t have any ambition
to move on and I don’t have anywhere to go.' (2)
'I don’t have any aspirations to be head of department I want to be a classroom
teacher, for me it's about being enthusiastic.' (12)
6.2.3. Career stage
Two interviewees were nearing retirement and therefore career progression had not been
part of their thinking: keeping up with current developments and continuing to be a good
teacher were motivational factors:
'I'm fairly close to the end of my career but it's something I've just been very
interested in, having the responsibility for it here… I was keeping in step with current
thinking.' (24)
In relation to retention, those teachers involved in the study who were reaching retirement
were more likely to express a desire to stay in teaching, alongside NQTs.
6.2.4. Family reasons
Six teachers in the telephone study spoke about family life being related to their career
development, for example having children being an influencing factor for their career
decisions, usually having children meant that it was not always possible to take certain
career opportunities. One teacher mentioned moving to be with her husband meaning she
would have to change schools.
6.3. School-related factors
6.3.1. Progression opportunities
For some telephone interviewees, particularly primary and college teachers, there was a lack
of opportunity for progression:
'No but the college doesn’t work in the same career progress path as anywhere else,
it's quite a flat management structure.' (13)
This was also true of some open comments from the survey, for example:
38
'The only opportunity for career development for me is to resign from my current
employer and work as a head of department with a different employer, however, I am
reluctant to do this because good working conditions are more important to me than
career progression.' (survey comment)
'… It would be unfair to write that it has a significant impact on career development.
Unfortunately, as much as the SLC courses have equipped me for career
progression, it is usually down to the whims of individual management for career
development if one is loathe to move. (survey comment)
'I believe that SLC should do more to secure recognition for Science specialists in
Primary Schools as all my work and effort have not done anything to secure me
promotion at the whole school level. Science is still marginalised.' (survey comment)
Sometimes this was due to budgetary reductions:
'We are already being asked to cut our hours or they will be making redundancies.' (5)
6.3.2. Education phase
As noted in 6.3.1 above, progression is sometimes linked to education phase - with more
opportunities in secondary schools - but more broadly we found that secondary respondents
to the survey were more positive than other groups about impacts in intentions to stay in the
profession and career outcomes.
6.3.3. Senior leadership support and culture
A small number of telephone interviewees discussed difficulties due to an unsupportive SLT,
and a culture and organisation that hindered career progression, and other career outcomes:
'In my last school particularly I had a very unsympathetic head - not interested in
anything other than the way she wanted to run a school. In the end I decided to bail
out.' (10)
'This particular college that I'm engaged with at the moment is not the best place to
develop.' (16)
One teacher in particular who had left the profession recalled the frustration of wanting to
implement ideas but not having the opportunities, and mentioned that the CPD was almost a
factor in the decision to ultimately leave , as he was unable to utilise the learning in the
particular school:
'I think that is one of the reasons I finally gave up on teaching, realising that I was
chasing my tail and not having time to do things. Looking back now -The SLC CPD
courses are so thought provoking and stimulating that you realise there are so many
things you want to do and could do but the reality is there is very little you get the
opportunity to do, you don't' have the time to implement the different things so a big
sense of frustration. It's like having your eyes open to what could be and realising
that what is is not good enough. It led to dissatisfaction in my job.' (10)
There were a number of similar comments from open responses to the survey:
39
'I have now left the profession due to stress caused by poor management by senior
leaders. This has nothing to do with the consequences or impact of CP. I believe that
the SLC training courses are the best I ever attended in my 19 years as a teacher.
They are professionally delivered by enthusiasts and are of the highest standards.'
(survey comment)
'The SLC courses have been very interesting and useful to me as an individual and
helpful in enabling me to provide high quality education to my students. It is internal
factors that have led to my resignation, and the provision of good CPD would not
have made a different to that decision.'(survey comment)
Nearly all other teachers in the telephone study described their school as being supportive in
terms of CPD, for some this was due to a supportive school ethos and schools were
described as 100 per cent supportive; however for others it was simply that the school being
happy for the teacher to take part due to the cost being covered.
6.4. Wider contextual factors
6.4.1. Government policy
Where mentioned, this was invariably in negative terms. For example interviewees
mentioned not being able to implement ideas for a variety of reasons, such as the
bureaucracy and red tape associated with teaching.
'I think my desire to not progress any further than being just a classroom teacher is
the amount of bureaucracy that is involved…so many things to do you wouldn't be
able to provide a good lesson.' (20)
And some interviewees talked about the often deep impact of government policies
'Thing that influences me the most in terms of wanting to leave is the countless
initiatives and changing criteria - re -working of lessons, I am happy to evaluate
practice but its changing all the time. It becomes stressful.' (4)
'The fact that it's so target driven and I really hate it.' (23)
Often, teachers - especially in open survey comments - discussed the influence of
government policy and the school together:
'… Sadly, the whole issues of workload plus retirement and pay (currently working 50
plus hours per week) has made me consider very carefully my career and what I
want from it. I am now considering leaving the profession so that I can spend more
time with family. They are getting a little fed up of the long hours also.'(survey
comment)
'I am leaving the profession, but the reasons cannot be addressed by the SLC work.
SLCs actually help teacher deliver better, more inspiring lessons; unfortunately, the
systems in place in schools and nationally do not. In fact, it is my experience that
management in school, exam boards, and the various quangos and other
organisations actually make life more difficult.'(survey comment)
40
7. Conclusions and implications
Our review of literature found there is relatively little research into the relationships between
CPD and teacher retention and career development and progression. There are indications
that CPD can make an impact, particularly in the relatively straightforward case of CPD that
explicitly aims to support career progression (e.g. leadership development), but little else.
This project, therefore, does provide a useful contribution to the body of knowledge showing
that CPD can impact on retention and career, and theorising how this can happen.
We should note first of all that this study provided direct evidence of impacts on intentions to
stay in the profession from the perspective of some teachers, and evidence of indirect and
intermediate and indirect retention-related outcomes, in particular development of practice,
job satisfaction and motivation, for a much larger group. However, CPD is not the major
factor in most cases, being overridden by personal, school and other factors.
These perceived impacts were associated with high engagement with Science Learning
Centre CPD, but it is hard to disentangle the causal relationships here. In some cases it may
be that the CPD actually led to retention, and we had some evidence of this for a few
teachers from the qualitative work. But for many it may well be that what we might call more
‘activist’ teachers who were motivated to stay in the profession tended to engage more in
CPD: in previous work (Coldwell et al 2011) we identified that those with a proactive
approach to engagement in CPD and career development accessed more CPD and gained
more from it, and there is some support from the qualitative aspects of this study for this
perspective. Putting it another way, drawing on an influential study in relation to Science
CPD (Batterham et al 2006), it may be the case that believers in and seekers of CPD
engage more in CPD than agnostics and sceptics (see Figure 7.1 below). We should note
here that we can say little about sceptics, since few found their way into our sample, either
by being excluded (since they would tend not to engage in Science Learning Centre CPD in
the first place) or not engaging with the study (since they may well not feel motivated to
complete a questionnaire about CPD).
Figure 7.1: Relationship theorised between engagement in Science Learning Centre
CPD and Batterham et al's (2006) categories
High engagement in Science Learning Centre CPD Medium engagement in Science Learning Centre CPD Low engagement in Science Learning Centre CPD
Believers Seekers Agnostics Sceptics
41
Similarly, in relation to career outcomes, there were perceived impacts of Science Learning
Centre CPD for those that took part in the study, and again this was more positive for those
that engaged to a greater extent with Science Learning Centre CPD.
The literature review and qualitative work were able to provide useful additional evidence in
relation to how and why Science Learning Centre CPD might impact on retention and career
progression and development, and this related to the personal, school and wider contexts
that prevail. When we began this project, there were few established frames for analysing
the relationships between CPD and retention and career outcomes. This is because these
are not usually the focus of research into CPD, which tends to explore the relationships
between CPD and teacher outcomes broadly conceived, school improvement and pupil
outcomes. Career outcomes are not referred to in the influential Kirkpatrick (1998) and
Guskey (2000) CPD impact models, for example [although they are seen as outcomes in our
own work on CPD evaluation (Coldwell and Simkins 2010), which is not surprising since our
model developed initially from work evaluating the impact of leadership development
programmes (e.g. Simkins 2009) which often implicitly or explicitly were aimed at career
progression]. One of the outcomes of the current study is the development of a schematic
framework of career and retention impacts, which has the potential to be used in future work
of this kind, in relation to Science CPD and more widely (Figure 7.2). We should point out, as
we have in previous work, that such a model will not capture all of the relationships between
CPD and career outcomes, as well as the dynamic and heuristic nature of some of these
relationships. Such models are also only really useful for well specified, relatively bounded
CPD rather than wider professional learning (Webster-Wright 2009). With these caveats, we
suggest such a model can help to frame and organise work with similarities to the current
study.
42
Figure 7.2: Model of impact of Science Learning Centre CPD on retention and career
The model traces the relationships that emerged from our analysis between Science
Learning Centre CPD, on the left hand side, and career and retention outcomes on the right.
These 'final career outcomes' are mediated by intermediate outcomes. So, for example,
Science Learning Centre CPD may lead to increased confidence, professional knowledge
and job satisfaction, which may lead to retention in the profession. Similarly, CPD may lead
to similar intermediate outcomes as well as changed career aspirations, which may lead to
career progression.
However, the likelihood of these impacts taking place is influenced by a set of other factors
including aspects of the CPD itself, personal or individual factors, factors related to the
school and wider factors, as noted in the diagram and discussed in the body of the report.
Turning now to the relevance of the study for policy and practice, we can identify implications
of this study for schools, individuals and policymakers. Starting at the school level, we are
Influencing factors
Wider government policy
School opportunities to progress education phase SLT support and school culture
Personal motivations for engagement approach to CPD motivation towards promotion career stage family issues
Inputs - Science Learning
Centre CPD
quality; networking
opportunities; funding
Intermediate outcomes
Retention
motivation/enthusiasm
job satisfaction
Both
increased subject and
pedagogical knowledge
validation of knowledge
confidence
Career outcomes
improved classroom
practice
broader career development
career aspirations
Retention in the profession
Career progression
43
clearly still in a position where support for CPD is variable. We note the currently
commissioned research project looking at Headteachers’ views of Science Learning Centre
CPD, and this ought to add to this body of evidence that HTs need to be convinced further of
the clear value of CPD for their teachers and the school. Similarly, teachers themselves –
particularly those that we might term the more ‘passive’ teachers (in relation to CPD and
career development) or Batterham et al (2006) would call agnostics or sceptics - need to be
convinced of the benefits. And for policy makers there is a need to be mindful of the views of
a number of teachers in this study that issues such as policy overload, and a perceived lack
of respect and trust are far bigger issues in relation to teacher retention than high quality
CPD.
All of these issues, of course, have implications or at least suggest avenues for potential
action for the Science Learning Centres network and the National Science Learning Centre.
In relation to schools, the Science Learning Centres should continue to use evidence such
as that provided in this study and others to engage with Headteachers in relation to the now
clear evidence base in relation to the impact of high quality, subject specific CPD, and in
particular that provided by the Science Learning Centre network.
To support this, and to help engage those teachers not currently engaged with Science
Learning Centre work, we suggest that Science Learning Centres look carefully at how to
mobilise those with high engagement in Science Learning Centre work who our study shows
see the most positive impacts in relation to career and retention. In a previous study
(Coldwell et al, 2010) of the impact of the work of the National Centre for Excellence in the
Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM), we referred to the equivalent group as ‘activists’ and,
this potentially powerful group of advocates were utilised quite successfully as
'ambassadors' and 'associates' of the NCETM to try to engage others. We suggest, therefore,
that the Science Learning Centre network considers carefully how it might work with the
most engaged teachers to act similarly as Science Learning Centre advocates in
encouraging those that are currently disengaged.
Also in relation to teachers, our study finds that a number of those that saw limited outcomes
in relation to retention and career typically linked this to factors related to the school (e.g.
lack of opportunity; lack of support for CPD) and their life outside school (e.g. focussing on
raising a young family) rather than quality or usefulness of Science Learning Centre CPD,
which are usually viewed positively. This is important, because it means that if and when
teachers move schools or come back into the workforce they may well wish to re-engage
with Science Learning Centre CPD to further their career, or for other reasons. This points
up the need to consider attempting to maintain contact with teachers registered on the portal,
and perhaps focus the work of 'advocates', should they be utilised, on new starters in
schools, including those moving schools and returners to the profession, as well as new
entrants.
Finally, it is important to continue to engage with policy makers to try to ensure that the wider
policy environment is supportive of the effective utilisation of high quality CPD such as that
provided by the Science Learning Centre network, to avoid discouraging retention in the
profession.
44
8. References
Batterham, J., Page, J. and Boon, M. (2006) Believers, Seekers and sceptics: what teachers think
about continuing professional development. Wellcome trust briefing.
Coldwell, M. and Simkins, T., (2010). Level models of continuing professional development evaluation: a grounded review and critique, Professional Development in Education, 37:1, 143 - 157. Coldwell, M., Maxwell, B., Shipton, L., and Boylan, M. (2010) Assessing the Impact of the National
Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM) on Teachers and Learners, 2009-
2010, National Centre for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics
Coldwell, M., Davies, J., Maxwell, B., McCaig, C., and Stevens, A. (2011) NQT Quality Improvement
Study for the Training and Development Agency for Schools Part 5 Report: The NQT year revisited.
Drew, S. Gledhill, J., Haughton, P. Hramiak, A., Leman, J. McCaig, C., Potts, A., Stevens, A. (2008)
NQT Quality Improvement Study for the Training and development Agency for Schools. Report on
part 1: 'Environment map.' Sheffield Hallam University. TDA.
Guskey, T. (2000) Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hobson, A. Malderez, A., Tracey, L., Homer, M., Mitchell, N., Biddulph, M., Giannakaki, M. S., Rose,
A., Pell, R. G., Roper,T., Chambers, G. N., and Tomlinson, P.D. (2007) Newly Qualified Teachers’
Experiences of their First Year of Teaching. Findings from Phase III of the Becoming a Teacher
Project. University of Nottingham, University of Leeds and Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute.
DCSF
House of Commons (2004) Secondary Education: Teacher Retention and Recruitment Fifth Report of
Session 2003–04 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1998) Evaluating training programs: The four levels. 2nd edition. San Francisco:
Berrett- Koehler Publishers Inc.
Ladd, H. F. (2007) Salary Structures, Working Conditions, and Teacher Attrition Journal Issue:
Excellence in the Classroom Volume 17 Number 1 Spring 2007.
http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=34&articleid=82§ionid=
488
Simkins, T. (2009) Integrating work-based learning into large-scale national leadership development
programmes in the UK. Educational Review, 61:4, 391-405
Soulsby, D and Swain, D (2003) A Report on the Award-Bearing INSET scheme In: Grey, S. L. (2005) An
inquiry into continuing professional development for teachers. Esmee Fairbairn Foundation
Webster-Wright, A (2009) 'Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional
learning' Review of educational research 79:2, 702-739.
Williams, R (2010) Hundreds of thousands of qualified teachers 'not working in profession. Guardian
newspaper, January 1st 2010. Available at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jan/01/teachers-leaving-profession-shortages [Accessed
on20/10/11]