Collective labor agreement barely reduces teaching duties
The collective labor agreement, whereby teachers will teach less and have more time for educational development, is difficult to get off the ground. After the summer there will hardly be any reduction in work pressure.
Picture: Len Munnik
Less workload and more development time for teachers. That was the idea behind the agreement in the CLA for secondary education about the time for educational development, broadening and deepening (ovv time). The maximum teaching task of 750 clock hours must therefore be reduced by 2019 clock hours from August 30. With the add-on factor, a total of 50 clock hours will be available. The space to free up that time must be found in the possibilities offered by the Education Time Act.
Teachers and school management together draw up a plan that had to be submitted to the participation council before 1 March 2019. From a poll of the AOb among nearly 3500 members, it appeared in April that less than 20 percent of the schools have completed this plan. More than 10 percent indicate that this measure is not being implemented at all. In other cases, the conversation is still ongoing. "The fact that schools are not able to implement the measure on time is disappointing," responds AObdirector Henrik de Moel. "That means that the teaching duties of teachers in many schools will not decrease and that the goal of reducing workload will not be achieved."
AObdirector Henrik de Moel: 'The fact that schools are not succeeding in shaping the measure in time is disappointing'
Different interpretation
De Moel sees that schools fulfill the agreement in many different ways. Of the schools that have almost or completely completed the plan, only 15 percent opt for one lesson less per week. Some choose to reduce the number of teaching weeks or shorten the teaching time, for example from 50 to 45 minutes.
'At our school, this measure is being introduced by making class hours shorter,' writes a teacher in the AOb-survey. 'So you keep giving the same number of hours and the curriculum has to be completed in less time. I cannot imagine that this will reduce the workload. '
Schedule
Most schools opt for a number of central days on which the lessons are scheduled. That is also a shame, says De Moel. “They are solutions that lead to a reduction in the total number of teaching hours per year, but as a teacher you don't notice that much in practice. The workload is partly caused by the high number of teaching hours per week, linked to the amount of tasks and the more complex problems in the classroom. With this collective labor agreement we had in mind a reduction of one lesson hour per week: a very first step in reducing the workload. ”
With this collective agreement, we envisaged a reduction of one lesson hour per week
The good news, according to De Moel, is that in some schools it is possible to reduce the teaching workload per week. “Adjusting the lesson table is a complex task because it must be carried out within the framework of the law and without additional resources,” he explains. “This means that schools have to look carefully at which tasks cannot be performed or performed differently or how education can be organized differently. There are school boards that simply appoint more teachers to take care of those hours. Most schools have money left over every year, something that the inspectorate still calls worrying in its education report. So the possibilities are often there. But this will require consultation with all those involved: what do students need, how do we want to design our education and how do we achieve that? It is a pity that this conversation does not take place that way in many schools. ”
Good education
The time that becomes available must be used for educational development, broadening or deepening. It is not the case that educational reform should suddenly be put on the agenda, according to De Moel. “The idea behind this is that teachers really do have more time to give their education a good form and content. This does not have to be very grand, but can also concern, for example, the different design of a lesson or a different way of testing. It is up to the teachers themselves to determine what falls under ovv and how they want to fill in the time. ”
Less than 8 percent of the respondents report that they indeed decide for themselves where, when and how they enter the OVV time. In most cases, the days on which the ovv takes place are stated in the annual schedule. The management determines the content at more than 12 percent of those schools. “That is absolutely not the intention: the interpretation is really up to the teachers themselves,” de responds AOb-driver. “You are the strongest when you make a plan for this with your team or section. But there are even examples of boards rejecting such plans. That is contrary to the collective labor agreement. ” He advises teachers who are not allowed to decide for themselves how to fill in the ovv time to contact the union.
Trust
Most respondents (60 percent) are not confident that the agreement on ovv time will contribute to a reduction in workload. One teacher writes: 'Until now, the scheme has only added stress. We lose time to think about it and feel pressured to come up with a solution when there is none. Money needs to be added to be able to do this. '
A teacher in the AObsurvey: 'So far, the scheme has only caused more stress'
“The fact that this does not work like this means that the route via the Education Time Act has been exhausted,” says De Moel. “The minister will have to come up with other solutions. Ultimately, as a trade union, we want a teaching task of 20 hours per week. That costs a lot of money, but the desire to reduce the workload is very legitimate. The number of burnout complaints in secondary education is higher than in primary education. And if we do not want the shortages to reach the level of primary education, we need to invest now. It is time for the minister to come over. ”
