The increasing pressure for teachers to obey school curriculum policies is "profoundly demotivating" and is leading directly to people leaving the profession, a new study warns.
Teachers value being able to be creative and collaborate with each other to design lessons but are increasingly subject to school policies requiring their conformity.
The research shows this is also reducing their curriculum-making skills and reducing teacher autonomy and motivation, as well as relationships between colleagues and with pupils.
There is a teacher recruitment and retention crisis in England. There is a particular challenge in recruiting physical science teachers, with government targets for recruitment being missed for the last 10 years and a high proportion of physical science teachers leaving early in their careers.
The study says in an era where teacher retention is concerningly low, policies which reduce teacher motivation should be of "profound concern".
Dr Victoria Wong, from the University of Exeter, who led the study, said: "We have found evidence school and academy trust policies which require conformity are potentially very demotivating for teachers and can deprive them of the opportunity to learn curriculum-making for themselves.
"This might save time in the short term but leads to loss of skills and experience from the profession, both by the direct loss of good teachers from the classroom and by the reduction in opportunities to learn from more experienced colleagues. Neither the loss of experienced teachers nor the loss of skills from the profession will lead to higher quality teaching."
Dr Wong interviewed 15 very experienced teachers about curriculum-making at academy trust, school or classroom level. The teachers involved had served either 25+ years as a classroom teacher or 20+ years along with having worked with a Learned Society, the Association for Science Education, a relevant educational charity, a government agency or an awarding organisation. Two had spent the majority of their career in grammar (selective) schools, the rest taught mainly in non-selective state schools, several in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation. There were two biology, seven chemistry and six physics teachers.
The interviews showed teachers, especially experienced teachers, are flexible and can and do change their practice. This flexibility is especially apparent when they respond to changes in assessment strategy. Teachers described a variety of creative ways that they had worked to engage and motivate students.
Participants expressed concerns about the lack of confidence of many new teachers to be creative in the classroom and argued that if incoming teachers were unable to become creative, they would be more likely to leave the profession.
Alongside wanting the freedom to teach as they wished, teachers also valued working collaboratively with subject colleagues to improve aspects of their school curriculum and associated resources.
Many teachers reported a reduction in their freedom as individuals and departments to design curricula and teach due to school policies requiring uniformity and conformity in classroom practice. Some of the examples of expected conformity significantly limited teachers' options in their classrooms.
Several participants argued that teachers are more likely to have the confidence to move away from centrally planned resources with experience and when they are teaching in their own subject area, but science is often taught by non-specialists potentially limiting teachers' confidence to be creative.
The reasons given for an increase in conformity included: pressure from Ofsted; improving results in external examinations; saving time; improving teaching in the department; wanting to teach in the 'best' way and leadership teams not trusting teachers to do a good job if given more independence.
How the 'best way' was decided was often unclear. One of the teachers described their senior leadership team looking for examples of practice from schools that were believed to be high performing, with the belief that if those schools taught in a certain way, then that must be the 'best way'. Other participants raised concerns that decisions about the 'best way' were often being made by people who did not have experience of teaching science, arguing that teaching strategies are frequently subject specific and this is not recognised by school policies that prioritise conformity.
Participants described a variety of impacts from the pressure to conform. These included increased monitoring, disciplinary procedures if they did not conform and feeling demotivated.
The opportunity for increased competence and relatedness help to explain why the opportunity to collaborate is an important factor in retaining teachers.
Some participants described curricula planned at the level of the academy trust. These resources may reduce workload but it comes at the cost of opportunities to develop teachers' confidence, skills and competence in curriculum-making.
Dr Wong said: "Removing the space for teachers to act as professionals and make their own judgements reduces teachers' autonomy, does not respect or acknowledge their competence and is likely to lead to poorer relationships with students as material is not adapted for them. Three of the participants attributed leaving either a school or the profession to the lack of opportunities that they had for self-determination in the classroom, with several others discussing highly prescriptive institutions that they knew of and asserting that they would not be willing to teach without having autonomy. Trusting relationships between school leaders and staff can support teachers' motivation and help with retention."
Reducing teachers' autonomy deskills the profession. Teachers lacking skill in curriculum design can lead to school leaders choosing to use an externally written curriculum and the problem propagates until the confidence and ability to be creative in the classroom becomes the preserve of the experienced. Several of the participants expressed concerns about the ability of less experienced colleagues to design an engaging curriculum – and that without being able to do so, teaching would be dull and unmotivating, for both teachers and students.
The findings of this study have implications for all subjects and all schools pursuing or considering more restrictive curriculum policies as well as for organisations such as Ofsted.
