research on teacher workload

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about public school teachers in the U.S.

U.S. public school teachers have spent 2024 in the spotlight. The Democratic vice presidential nominee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz , has highlighted his previous career as a high school teacher and football coach. And a congressional hearing in June focused on multiple “crises” facing public school teachers , including low pay and overwork.

Here are some key facts about the 3.8 million public school teachers who work in America’s classrooms. These findings primarily come from a fall 2023 Pew Research Center survey of public K-12 teachers and from federal data.

This Pew Research Center analysis focuses on the demographics, experiences and hopes of K-12 public school teachers in the United States.

Demographic data comes from the National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics .

Data on teachers’ experiences primarily comes from a Center survey of 2,531 U.S. public K-12 teachers conducted from Oct. 17 to Nov. 14, 2023. This post also draws on our survey of 5,188 U.S. workers conducted from Feb. 6 to 12, 2023; it included both part-time and full-time workers who are not self-employed and have only one job or have more than one but consider one to be their primary job.

More information about each survey, including the questions and methodology, can be found at the links in the text.

Most K-12 public school teachers are women. About three-quarters (77%) of teachers are women and 23% are men, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the 2020-21 school year, which is the most recent one available. This gender imbalance is especially notable in elementary schools, where 89% of teachers are women. Women make up 72% of middle school teachers and 60% of secondary or high school teachers.

There is far more gender balance among U.S. workers overall, across different industries and occupations. In 2020, women accounted for 47% of workers ages 25 and older, compared with 53% who were men, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows. “Workers” in this analysis are those ages 25 and older in the U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population.

The teaching force skews a bit younger than U.S. workers overall. Just 8% of K-12 public school teachers are at least 60 years old, but 16% of U.S. workers are at least 60. Public school teachers are more likely to be in their 30s and 40s than are U.S. workers overall (56% vs. 49%). 

As a group, U.S. public school teachers are considerably less racially and ethnically diverse than their students, according to NCES data. In 2020-21, 80% of public school elementary and secondary teachers identified as non-Hispanic White. Much smaller shares were Hispanic (9%), Black (6%), Asian American or multiracial (2% each). And fewer than 1% identified as Pacific Islander or American Indian and Alaska Native.

By comparison, just under half (46%) of all public school students were non-Hispanic White in 2020. Another 28% were Hispanic, 15% were Black and 5% were Asian. Meanwhile, 4% were multiracial, and about 1% or fewer were American Indian and Alaska Native or Pacific Islander.

The share of the teaching force who is White has declined 7 percentage points between the 1987-88 and 2020-21 school years, but the growth in teachers’ racial and ethnic diversity still has not kept pace with the rapid growth in the diversity of their students over this time span. ( Note: In 2021, the Center published a more detailed version of this analysis  using the most recent data available at that time.)

Only a third of teachers say they’re extremely or very satisfied with their job overall, according to a fall 2023 Center survey of public K-12 teachers . About half (48%) say they’re somewhat satisfied, while 18% say they are not too or not at all satisfied with their job.

Teachers express much lower job satisfaction than U.S. workers overall: 51% of all employed adults say they are extremely or very satisfied with their job, according to a separate Center survey conducted in early 2023 . (Data for U.S. workers excludes those who are self-employed.)

Teachers are especially dissatisfied with certain aspects of the job, including how much they are paid (51% say they are not too or not at all satisfied); the opportunities for training or ways to develop new skills (26%); and the benefits their employer provides (24%).

In fact, 29% of teachers said it was at least somewhat likely they’d look for a new job in the 2023-24 school year. Among these teachers, 40% said it was at least somewhat likely they’d look for a job outside of education entirely.

Most teachers describe their job as stressful and overwhelming. Majorities of teachers say they find their job stressful (77%) or overwhelming (68%) extremely often or often. Some teachers are especially likely to experience this:

• Women: 74% of women teachers say they find teaching to be overwhelming extremely often or often, compared with 49% of men. And 80% of women teachers frequently find the job stressful, compared with 67% of men.
• Elementary and middle school teachers: Educators at these levels are more likely than their counterparts at high schools to say that their job is frequently stressful and overwhelming.

Teachers’ negative feelings may be related to the issues they report with understaffing. Seven-in-ten public K-12 teachers say their school is understaffed, with 15% saying it’s very understaffed. Another 55% say their school is somewhat understaffed. This pattern is consistent across elementary, middle and high schools.

Newer teachers are the most likely to say their job is generally fulfilling and enjoyable. Overall, slim majorities of all K-12 public school teachers say they find their job fulfilling (56%) or enjoyable (53%) extremely often or often.

These sentiments are most common among those who’ve been teaching for less than six years. For instance, 67% of teachers who have been teaching for five years or less say their job is fulfilling extremely often or often. That compares with 52% of teachers with six to 10 years of experience and 54% of those who’ve been teaching for 11 years or more.

Fewer people are completing the educational requirements to be hired as teachers – just one indicator of the field’s growing pipeline problem , NCES data shows. Many K-12 teachers  enter their line of work after getting a bachelor’s degree in education, which includes a teacher preparation program. But some teachers instead meet license requirements through alternative preparation programs , offered through a college or university, state government, nonprofit or other organization.

Both the number and share of new college graduates with a bachelor’s degree in education have decreased over the last few decades . Yet during that span, the overall number and share of Americans with a college degree increased.

In 2021-22, the most recent year with available data, schools conferred about 89,000 education bachelor’s degrees, making up 4% of the total issued that year. In 2000-01, roughly 105,000 undergraduates (8% of the total) graduated with bachelor’s degrees in education.

Teacher preparation programs have also seen a steep decline in enrollment  in recent years, including both traditional programs associated with higher-education institutions and alternative ones. Between the 2012-13 and 2020-21 school years, the number of people who completed teacher prep programs dropped from about 190,000 to 160,000. In 2020-21, 13% of those prospective educators received their prep through alternative programs run by organizations other than institutions of higher education.

Teachers are relatively split on whether they would advise young people to join the profession, according to the Center’s fall 2023 survey. While 48% say they would recommend the profession to a young person starting out today, 52% say they would not.

High school teachers (56%) are more likely than middle school (46%) and elementary school (43%) teachers to recommend the job. This view is also more common among teachers with five years or less of teaching experience than among more veteran educators.

Teachers rate students in their school fairly low when it comes to academic performance and behavior. About half of K-12 public school teachers say the behavior (49%) and academic performance (48%) of most of students at their school is fair or poor. Meanwhile, just 17% say students’ academic performance is excellent or very good, and 13% say the same about student behavior at their school.

In addition to broader issues at their school, teachers report various challenges in their own classrooms. Teachers across all K-12 grade levels say certain student behaviors are major issues in their classroom:

• Showing little to no interest in learning (47% of teachers say this is a major problem)
• Being distracted by their cellphones (33%)
• Getting up and walking around when they’re not supposed to (21%)
• Being disrespectful toward teachers (21%)

Certain problems are more prevalent for older or younger grade levels. For instance, high school teachers report bigger problems with cellphone distraction (72% say it’s a major problem) and students showing little to no interest in learning (58%). Meanwhile, elementary and middle school teachers are more likely than high school teachers to experience students getting up and walking around or being disrespectful toward teachers.

About half of teachers (51%) say that if there’s one thing they want the public to know about them, it’s that teaching is a difficult job and teachers are hardworking. This was the most common response to an open-ended question we asked teachers last fall .

Another 22% of teachers said they want the public to know that teachers care about their students, and 17% want the public to know that teachers are undervalued.

• Education & Politics

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center .

Most Hispanic Americans say increased representation would help attract more young Hispanics to STEM

Most americans back cellphone bans during class, but fewer support all-day restrictions, a look at historically black colleges and universities in the u.s., 5 facts about student loans, 72% of u.s. high school teachers say cellphone distraction is a major problem in the classroom, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Advertisement

Teacher attributions of workload increase in public sector schools: Reflections on change and policy development

• Published: 06 January 2023
• Volume 24 , pages 971–993, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Meghan Stacey   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2192-9030 1 ,
• Susan McGrath-Champ   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2209-5683 2 &
• Rachel Wilson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2550-1253 3  

6686 Accesses

13 Citations

11 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In education systems around the globe influenced by neoliberalism, teachers commonly experience reforms which emphasise local responsibility and accountability. Teachers additionally work within what has been described as an era of social acceleration and associated “fast policy”, with a perceived increase in the pace of reform. In this article, we present data drawn from a large (N = 18,234) survey of Australian public-school teachers’ work. Analysis of both quantitative and qualitative reports indicates a widespread teacher perception of workload increase from 2013 to 2017, and the attribution of such increase to the introduction of policy initiatives including, but not limited to, school autonomy reform. Our findings have implications for education policy in Australia and beyond, with an erosion of teacher trust suggesting the need for more sustainable and consultative forms of “slow democracy” in education policy.

Similar content being viewed by others

‘Teachers are the guinea pigs’: teacher perspectives on a sudden reopening of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic

Teachers as Agents and Policy Actors

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

According to Ball et al., ( 2012 , p. 141), school education today takes place within a “climate of policy overload and initiativitis—in a period of constant reform and incitement to improve.” In this article, we explore teachers’ experiences of policy change in public-school education. We achieve this through examining teachers’ perceptions and lived experience of change to their work and workload, as well as how they attribute the cause of such change, connecting and extending debates regarding school autonomy, teacher accountability, and teacher workload. In doing so, we put forward an analysis which draws together related but heretofore disparate conceptual devices around temporality in policy, located within a broader theoretical context of social acceleration (Rosa, 2003 ).

Teachers’ work and workload over the period 2013 to 2017 in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia provides the empirical forum through which we examine public-school teachers’ experience of policy change. During this time, the “Local Schools, Local Decisions” (LSLD) autonomy and devolution reforms (NSW DEC, 2011 ) —along with a range of other state and federal policy affecting teachers—were in operation.

In what follows, we present further background regarding the reform context in NSW during the five-year period from 2013 to 2017. We explore literature from Australia and around the globe regarding governance reform in public education systems, as well as that documenting changes to teacher workload. Subsequently we outline our conceptual framework for the article, constructed around ideas of social acceleration, “fast policy”, and policy “layering”. We then detail our research methods before presenting our results and discussion. Ultimately, we argue that this article makes two key contributions. First, teachers report experiencing heightened workload via ongoing policy shifts, such that “policy” is being perceived as synonymous with “change”. This may have significant ramifications for future policy implementation and workplace relations between teachers and their government employer. Second, we seek to contribute to theoretical developments in critical policy studies by drawing together a range of related conceptual devices for considering teachers’ experience of policy change.

Teachers in the Australian state of NSW have been subject to a wide range of reforms over the past ten years. These include, for example, changes to funding structures at both federal and state level, Footnote 1 a move to a national curriculum, the introduction of new literacy and numeracy programs (NSW DEC, 2017 ), and the institution of new record-keeping procedures for student assessment (NSW Education Standards Authority, 2019 ). One particularly substantial change during this period was the shift to a new mode of school autonomy via the LSLD initiative. In this section, we consider the research literature relating to change and reform in public education, both in Australia and globally; and the growing body of research around work demands and workload in teaching.

Change and reform in public education

Autonomy reform, where the running of state schools is purportedly “freed up” at the local level, has been an international trend in education, for instance through the Academy model in England (Chitty, 2013 ) or charter schools in the United States (Ravitch, 2010 ). Research in Australia has examined whether autonomy promotes or undermines particular forms of justice. Keddie ( 2017 ) argues that while school autonomy reforms can support political, cultural and economic justice in better responding to the needs of local communities, it can also undermine social justice by variously silencing and privileging different voices. Principals’ capacity for “moral leadership” is therefore key (Keddie et al., 2018 ), so that autonomy does not “fracture” relationships between and within school communities (Fitzgerald et al., 2018 ; Holloway & Keddie, 2019 ).

Part of understanding the operation of autonomy, then, includes exploration of the effects such policy approaches can have on principals and teachers—and whether and how such impacts can and should be resisted (Gobby et al., 2018 ). Indeed the “companion” of autonomy, within neoliberal governance approaches at least, tends to be found in centralised modes of accountability (Hashim et al., 2021 ). According to Ball et al., ( 2012 , p. 9), “much education policy making has been appropriated by the central state in the determination to control, manage and transform education … even if this sometimes involves the appearance of giving away control and enhancing autonomy”. While the “problem of the unaccountable teacher” (Thompson & Cook, 2014 , p. 700) is not new, its particular shape and prominence has been rearticulated in current governance models. Autonomy reform is counter-balanced by processes of “responsibilisation”, driving responsibility for the outcomes of education to local levels (including teachers), and establishing particular policy technologies to encode and measure these outcomes. Such “autonomous” systems thereby arguably continue “the reliance on, yet suspicion of, the teacher” (Thompson & Cook, 2014 , p. 704) in new ways. This contradictory combination of effects is what is often referred to as “remote control” governance (Connell, 2013 ) or “steering at a distance” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010 , p. 119). As Ball ( 1990 , p. 68) put it, writing thirty years ago in the context of autonomy reform in England, while matters such as the curriculum may be made “national”, “accountability is now firmly local”.

Sometimes, there is a direct relation between autonomy and accountability, for instance in the institution of principal reporting mechanisms within their new budget “freedoms” under LSLD. However, accountability can also be heightened in ways that do not directly relate to specific autonomy reforms, and in this article, we are more interested in the increasing (performative) accountability climate overall. Relevant here, for instance, has been the introduction of national standardised testing in Australia via the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (or NAPLAN), with school results published online; as well as accreditation processes that require the presentation of evidence of one’s teaching against prescribed standards. Such shifts, it has been argued, can lead to teachers holding narrowly-defined performance objectives through the rise of what Wilkins et al. ( 2020 ) describe as “the neo-performative teacher”. The collection of evidence and data in proof of teaching work is something that is arguably a growing expectation of teachers today (Hardy, 2015 ; Talbot, 2016 ). Indeed, research suggests that teachers find the need to provide evidence of what they do to be a substantial component of their work, as work demands compromise their capacity to work in the best interests of their students (Stacey et al., 2022 ). An exploration into the perceived origins of, and changes in these work demands over time is therefore warranted.

Teacher and principal workload

Reports of increasing workload in schools have come from around Australia, with a series of union-affiliated reports across the states of Western Australia, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania and New South Wales (see Gavin et al., 2022 for a synthesis of these reports). A further union-affiliated report in NSW shows that, unsurprisingly, workload increased yet further under the imposts of the 2020 COVID19 pandemic (Wilson et al., 2020 ). It is interesting to note this plethora of primarily union-led interest in issues of workload, which corroborates such measures as the NSW state-run “People Matters” survey which found 60% of teachers reporting unacceptable levels of work stress in 2019, very high compared to 39% for the public sector overall (NSW Public Service Commission, 2019 ).

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) measured change between 2013 and 2018, roughly the same period of time explored in this article. According to the most recent TALIS results, globally, teachers spent fewer total hours on “general administrative work” in 2018 than in 2013 (OECD, 2018 ). However, this is not true in Australia, where teachers spend an above-average amount of their time on such work, a proportion of time which did not decline but stayed about the same. Meanwhile, hours worked overall appear to have increased (Thomson & Hillman, 2019 ), and are above average when compared internationally (OECD, 2018 ). When asked about preferred priorities of government in the management of their work, it is notable that “reducing teachers’ administrative load by recruiting more support staff” was the most popular option for Australian teachers, but ranked fourth when considered across the OECD—yet still seen as “of high importance” by 55% of OECD respondents (OECD, 2019 ). Thus, while issues around workload are particularly prominent in Australia, they are also found elsewhere. Global reports of unmanageable teacher and principal workload beyond TALIS and the OECD are also emerging, including in New Zealand (Bridges & Searle, 2011 ), South Korea (Kim, 2019 ), the Republic of Ireland (Morgan & Craith, 2015 ), and the UK (Burrow et al., 2020 ). The research findings we report upon here are therefore likely to have resonance internationally.

A range of conceptual framings have been brought to understanding the question of teacher workload. Change to, and increase in, what teachers “do” in their day-to-day work has been argued, for instance, to lead to a need for teachers to perform “triage” in their work, leaving some activities ultimately incomplete (Stacey et al., 2022 ). This has meant a need to pick and choose, where possible, which work to do and not do, with work more directly connected to the classroom generally being more valued but with this decision not always an easy one to make (e.g. Ball, 2003 ). Workload has also been explored via the “intensification thesis” as a conceptual lens (e.g. Stone-Johnson, 2016 ; Fitzgerald et al., 2019 ). Examinations of intensification in Australian teachers’ work have a considerable history (e.g. Connell, 1985 ), with researchers arguing that teachers have been required to work longer and harder, subject to external pressures and without the necessary time and resources. Complementing literature on intensification, Thompson and Cook ( 2017 , p. 29) draw on Deleuze to argue that “perceptions and experiences of time, and subjectivity itself” for teachers also require attention. Thompson and Cook explore qualitative accounts from teachers and principals explaining their experience of their work as the bounds of working time become increasingly permeable. The authors identify “two specific manifestations” of time for teachers:

First, the idea that there is not enough time to teach, which is a perception that there is more teaching to be done than is possible to do properly because of how these reforming assemblages have reconstituted what counts as “good teaching”. Second, and related to the former, is a sense of being out of time, or that the temporal rhythms that have habitually been associated with teaching as an ethical practice of disciplined care, are being reconfigured through a reinterpretation of care diffracted through testing (Thompson & Cook, 2017 , pp. 33–34).

Thompson and Cook ( 2017 ), and Fitzgerald et al. ( 2019 ) are concerned mostly with how time is experienced on the ground in schools—including, in the case of Fitzgerald et al. ( 2019 ), as impacted by devolutionary structures. In this article, while we are still concerned with devolution as a key aspect of the current policy settlement, we are more concerned with reflections on the overall experience of recent policy shifts. Our conceptual framework for making this exploration is provided in the next section.

Conceptual framework: perceived change and education policy

Rosa ( 2003 ) identifies three categories of acceleration—technological acceleration, acceleration of social change, and acceleration of the pace of life. In this article, we are primarily interested in the second category, the perception “that rates of change themselves are changing” (Rosa, 2003 , p. 7). A focus on “variation in the pace of change” (Fawcett, 2018 , p. 549) is an aspect of social acceleration theory which, according to Fawcett, has seen comparatively less examination in the literature. It is nevertheless an important one, for “how institutions and agents perceive, interact, manage and adapt to change … has implications for the future of governance and democratic participation” (Fawcett, 2018 , p. 549).

Fawcett ( 2018 , p. 557) links subjective experiences of social acceleration as outlined by Rosa ( 2003 ) with theories of governance around “fast policy”. A primary focus within the literature on fast policy has been its spatial dimensions, for instance through diffusion and take-up of “global policy models” across and within nation states (Peck & Theodore, 2015 ). Yet if “ideas circulate at a much faster rate” (Fawcett, 2018 , p. 557) then it follows that attempts at policy change may also be experienced as more frequent. Policy is both decontextualized and rushed, with “the need for highly visible political action … [overriding] the need for a comprehensive approach to reform” (Lewis & Hogan, 2019 , p. 1). Lewis and Hogan ( 2019 , p. 14) thereby identify a “new policy temporality” with government groups “increasingly driven by the rationale of a fast, ultra-connected polity, in which schooling reform is regularly demanded and ‘quick-fix’ solutions are putatively needed”. Thus, while in Fawcett’s ( 2018 ) view, both “fast” and “slow” approaches to politics have their time and place, perhaps a more common argument within critical education policy literature has been that fast policymaking is unhelpful and inappropriate in the context of education (e.g. Lewis & Hogan, 2019 ), being antithetical to careful consideration and thought. Related themes have been taken up by Rizvi and Lingard ( 2010 , p. 20), for whom educational policy and educational change have almost become synonymous. This does not necessarily mean that “real” change or reform is indeed achieved, however; it is arguably “a problem with the current time of education policy-making … that it brings about change without producing real difference” (Thompson & Cook, 2014 , p. 712). It is change for the sake of change; change as an achievement or policy “move” in and of itself.

An increased pace of change via “fast policymaking” may take the form of what has been described as “policy layering”. According to Howlett et al. ( 2018 , p. 137), “layering is a process whereby new goals and instruments are simply added to an existing regime without abandoning previous ones, typically leading to both incoherence amongst the goals and inconsistency with respect to instruments used”. Policy design rarely begins “de novo” (Howlett et al., 2018 , p. 139), after all. Pinto ( 2015 , p. 143) explores the phenomenon of “policy layering” in Ontario, there described as “assemblages of related or unrelated policy that directs practice in schools”. Over time, layers accumulate, with educators left responsible for simultaneously enacting multiple policies. Capano notes, however, that layering is not necessarily always about change; instead, layering can also be thought of as “a mode of designing institutions through which policy-makers intervene additively with the existing institutional arrangements to affect related behaviours to achieve specific, desired results” (Capano, 2019 , p. 594). Seeing layering as design may, however, also be somewhat optimistic. As Ball et al. note, policy in schools may be “reviewed and revised as well as sometimes dispensed with or simply just forgotten” (Ball et al., 2012 , p. 4), subsumed within the layers. Indeed, layering is directly relevant to workload, given the sense of accumulation and “adding to” that it conveys. While workload is not a simple equation of additional tasks necessarily equalling additional time in the same way for everyone, for the school leaders in Pinto’s ( 2015 , p. 145) ethnographic study of policy layering, “all expressed that the volume of policies was overwhelming”. As Ball et al., ( 2012 , p. 9) put it, in such a climate:

[s]chools and teachers are expected to be familiar with, and able to enact, multiple (and sometimes contradictory) policies that are planned for them by others and they are held accountable for this task. However…individual policies and policy makers do not normally take account of the complexity of institutional policy enactment environments. It is simply assumed that schools can and will respond, and respond quickly, to multiple policy demands and other expectations. Policy is easy, enactments are not.

Indeed, Rizvi and Lingard ( 2010 , p. 19) note that intended and unintended consequences arise from policy, and escalating workload may be one of the latter. For instance both Pinto ( 2015 ) and Ball et al. ( 2012 ) argue that the effect, if not the intention, of such heightened policy imposition can be to stifle opposition, as those on the receiving end are too busy implementing policy to resist it. Shergold ( 2015 ), in reviewing Australian government processes, recommended that policy advice should envisage and set out potential unforeseen and unintended consequences, building implementation plans into policy design to minimise unintended consequences.

In making this exploration of teachers’ reflections on policy change, we bring together ideas about social acceleration as a subjective theory regarding how time is perceived and experienced, with literature concerned with theories of governance, such as “fast policy” and “policy layering”. The link between the experiences of teachers and what is decided by education policy-makers can be understood by drawing on scholarship around policy technologies and policy enactment. Ball ( 2003 ) has argued that policy change can impact how teachers understand themselves and what it means to be a teacher. Regarding experiences of being subject to education policy in England at the turn of the 21st Century, Ball ( 2003 , p. 220) writes:

There is a flow of changing demands, expectations and indicators that makes one continually accountable and constantly recorded. We become ontologically insecure: unsure whether we are doing enough, doing the right thing, doing as much as others, or as well as others, constantly looking to improve, to be better, to be excellent. And yet it is not always very clear what is expected.

These uncertainties, Ball argues, are largely internalised, giving rise to self-doubt and personal anxiety, and there is thus “an emotional status dimension” (p. 221) to teachers’ response to policy change. More recent work of Ball ( 2012 , p. 625) and colleagues highlights the ways in which teachers do not simply receive but enact policy; they are “positioned differently and take up different positions in relation to policy”. Modes of governance are thereby connected in complex and varied ways with the experiences and perspectives of the subjects of that governance. This relationship may be particularly evident when we consider Rosa’s ( 2003 , p. 26) concept of “desynchronization”, where “not all subsystems are equally capable of acceleration”, and rifts can form across different parts of the system. From this perspective, it is possible that changes introduced at state and national government levels, may not be felt to match the “pace” or capacity for acceleration at local levels. As Rosa ( 2015 , p. 17) writes, there is a danger of “arrhythmia”, a sense of being out of step with time or feeling as though one is in the “wrong time”, perhaps with values belonging to previous iterations of public education, resonating with the “values schizophrenia” identified by Ball ( 2003 ). This may go some way to understanding teachers’ communication of policy “burnout” or fatigue, as has also been discerned elsewhere (such as in Ireland—Morgan & Craith, 2015 ).

To summarise, in this article we understand the relationship between the key concepts introduced above, of social acceleration, fast policy and policy layering, as follows. We propose that an experience of social acceleration is evident through a perception of increased rates of policy change, with this “fast policy” often taking the form of policy “layering”, and with particular implications for workload, as we outline above.

Within this conceptual framework, the questions we aim to address in this paper are:

How do teachers reflect on changes to their work over the period 2013–2017?

How do teachers reflect on the role of policy in relation to these changes?

From our research findings below, we argue that the considerable sweep of recent reforms is understood by respondents as related to an increased rate of change within an “accelerated” and “accelerating” society, through multiple, sometimes constant and sometimes contradictory or conflicting policy “layers”.

In this section, we present the methods used for gathering and analysing the survey questionnaire data upon which our arguments draw. Conducted in 2018 with full institutional ethical approval, the survey questionnaire was commissioned by the teachers’ union for public schools in NSW, the NSW Teachers Federation (NSWTF). The survey was devised by the research team and distributed by the NSWTF to their members Footnote 2 along with information about the study to ensure informed participation, following which the team conducted independent analysis of the results. Garnering responses from 18,234 out of all 54,202 members of the union (a response rate of 33.6%), the data source can be considered quite comprehensive. This is additionally so given the high membership rate of the union, representing over 80% of the state’s public-school teachers (NSWTF, 2017 ). The questionnaire as a whole was designed to explore: (a) the teaching, learning and other activities currently undertaken in schools; (b) how these different kinds of work were evaluated by teachers; (c) how work (nature and quantum) was perceived to have changed over the past five years; (d) the effects of these changes; and (e) actions or strategies that might be taken to support work in schools. The data reported below relate to teachers’ retrospective perceptions of policy change over the immediately preceding period and their reflections on possible drivers of change, collected through a single-wave survey, rather than a longitudinal measure of change between two time-points.

In this paper we investigate in depth aspects of the survey that included reference to the role of state and federal policy initiatives, and teachers’ experiences of these changes. Footnote 3 While survey items make mention of particular forms of policy requirements, such as administrative work or new syllabus documents, specific policies are not engaged with. As noted by Ball et al. ( 2012 ), policy research frequently focuses on singular policy texts or suites, which can elide the complexity of the overall policy-suite. The items we report on were instead intended to gather a broad, rather than especially specific, view of current policy-related work in schools. As such, we primarily report on part “c”, and some aspects of parts “a”, “d” and “e” of the survey as outlined above, to document teachers’ retrospectively reported changes in workload over the previous five years, and their reflections which, we found, attribute this to largely administrative, policy-driven requirements.

Data relevant to answering these inquiry questions include quantitative items across the survey, as well as two specific open-ended questions directed at all respondents: the first (n = 8575) requesting that participants “comment on any changes to your workload over the last 5 years (2013–2017)”; and the second (n = 5427) to “provide any other ideas you think would support you in your work”. Given the large numbers who responded to these questions, thematic analysis of a random sample of responses was an appropriate approach. Random samples of 300 respondents were generated for each open-ended question. The samples were checked and confirmed as having representative proportions of comments and the full dataset was scanned alongside the samples to determine that the nature of comments in the samples were indicative of the full qualitative dataset. The samples were then analysed inductively to produce key themes (Ezzy, 2003 ). Each question was initially coded by one member of the research team, with researchers then meeting to discuss and share the codes derived. This process enabled us to identify and cross-check themes which featured consistently across questions (common codes here included, e.g. ‘administration’ and ‘accountability’), whilst maintaining the integrity of the analysis process for each particular question (e.g., the question on change over time featured commentary on ‘new responsibilities’ and (reductions or a lack of change in) ‘support’, while the question on strategies to manage workload featured commentary on a need for ‘resources’ and ‘trust, respect, esteem for the profession’). Qualitative data were understood as complementary to the quantitative data gathered, functioning as a space for participants to confirm and extend their quantitative reports. All data were rendered anonymous at the point of collection. Qualitative data are reported with a numerical identifier of that record. Quantitative data are reported using the findings from descriptive statistical analysis produced in SPSS.

The sample included a range of: levels of school (primary and secondary), socioeconomic/educational family status, locations (metropolitan, regional and remote), teaching and learning roles (all tertiary-qualified teachers, and school leaders), experience levels (early-, mid- and late-career stage), employment types (permanent, fixed-term/temporary, ‘casual’ Footnote 4 ) and employment fraction (full-time, part-time). Whilst the effects of temporary employment have been discerned from this dataset (McGrath-Champ et al., 2022a ), generally the phenomena examined in this article are understood to not be highly differentiated across these sample parameters. In the presentation of results below, we refer to “respondents” as the entirety of the respondent group, with specific roles such as “teachers” or “principals” only identified where data has been thus disaggregated.

In this section, we first provide data concerning the changing demands teachers reported alongside their perceptions of changes in support. Second, we provide data on the sources to which teachers attribute workload changes, derived from both direct statements about workload as well as in respondents’ election of strategies for managing workload. We incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data across the sections that follow.

Changing demands and support for teachers’ work

Teachers’ working hours are considerable, with classroom teachers reporting an average of 55 h per week during term (Gavin et al., 2022 ), and principals/deputy principals an average of 62 h. Respondents to the survey also note that this overall quantum of hours is somewhat new. Respondents were asked to report changes to their work over the past five years (from 2013 to 2017), identifying a significant growth in overall hours, with 87% reporting an increase over this period, as well as increases in: complexity (95%); range of activities (85%); the collection, analysis and reporting of data (96%); and administrative tasks (97%). Here it is relevant to note that vast numbers of classroom teachers remain in the same role for longer than five years and a length of experience does not automatically entail increased responsibility. While it is possible that career progression may mean, over five years, some respondents take on more senior roles, this is through a teacher specifically seeking a “promotions position”. Career advancement may involve new tasks and greater complexity for a worker, however, effective labour market “matching” between jobs and suitable candidates means this does not necessarily entail enduring increase in workload. “Progression” alone is very unlikely to account for the reported workload increases.

Indeed, respondents report work related to central policy requirements as constituting a significant portion of their overall work—not so much that it is done daily, but every week or at a frequency that is less than weekly. For instance, in the section of the survey where respondents marked off frequency of activities undertaken from a provided list, “working on accreditation-related requirements” is reported as being in the top ten activities undertaken every week. Respondents also identify the following activities as being in the top ten work activities done less frequently than weekly (such as fortnightly or more intermittently than weekly):

Reporting of student attainment information to external authorities,

Work associated with the School Excellence Framework, including self-assessment and external validation,

Responding to and dealing with NESA [state regulatory authority] requirements in relation to curriculum, accreditation and inspections,

Providing evidence of implementing NSW departmental policies and procedures, and

Data collection analysis and reporting associated with state-wide strategies.

Interestingly, all of these policy-related activities were negatively evaluated by respondents as being unimportant/unnecessary, not needing more time and resources, being time-consuming and cumbersome, and/or focused on compliance rather than teaching and learning.

In tandem with the increases in this work undertaken by respondents are their reports of reduced support. Head teachers, principals and assistant principals were the groups most likely to report decreases in the level of support received from the NSW Department of Education. The response patterns in relation to Departmental support are reported, in full, in Table 1 . Here the pattern shows staff are split between reporting no change or a decrease in support. Very low proportions (between 8 and 12%) report that departmental support has increased.

The most dominant theme in responses to the open-ended question (“comment on any changes to your work over the past 5 years (2013–2017)”), focused on administrative requirements. Respondents described the increase in these demands, with one stating that “administrative tasks and record keeping has more than doubled in the past 5 years” (#6734085759). In focus here is the changing nature of work as well as its increase in quantity, with frequent references to “paperwork”: “there is way too much paperwork” (#6782272421); “the amount of paperwork required is ridiculous” (#6733036573). “Admin” was often linked by respondents to accountability mechanisms, identifying an “increase in irrelevant administration related to teacher accountability” (#6707701557) with “the greatest change” being “the amount and importance of … box-ticking style evaluation and oversight processes” (#6704995007) with “accountability in programming and collection of data” becoming “extreme” (#6721509510). “Admin” is considered as a theme distinct from other potential accountability mechanisms, for example concerns about “executive observation” leading to a sense of “feeling watched” and “feeling criticised” (#6763815151).

Another common theme expressed a lack, or reduction, of central supports. While respondents reported that demands have increased, consistent with the quantitative findings, qualitative accounts also articulated that the level of support they were receiving either had not changed, or had decreased. About half of all qualitative comments that addressed the issue of support suggested that it had decreased. One respondent recalled that they “used to have a team of people in district/regional office who we knew by name and provided great support for schools” but that this “appears to have disappeared” (#6757602772). Other respondents simply noted that what was available was felt to be unhelpful or inadequate (“many more policies and rule requirements … most support [was] simply … more information thrown at us” (#6720603224)), while some noted that supports had only stayed the same despite increasing demands: “the demands on staff have increased yet we've not had increased support to assist us” (#6708395150); there is “more paperwork, preparation, higher expectations [but] less and less time given [and] we’re just expected to magically make it happen” (#6750183523)—“more is expected with a ‘suck it up or move on’ attitude” (#6721562094). This situation is summarised by a respondent as one where “society and education administrators are trying to make education work under a business model” (#6718535272). Another commented that there seems to be “no time to consolidate and apply new knowledge before a new “improved” version is introduced and proficiency demanded!” (#6733794660).

Both the quantitative and qualitative findings provide clear evidence that teachers have experienced an increase in workload, alongside diminished support towards accomplishing what is asked of them. How teachers attribute this increase in work demands is the focus of the next section.

Teacher attributions of workload change and workload management strategies

Respondents directly attribute workload change to government initiatives. This is evident, for instance, in items that queried which elements of work might hinder teaching and learning. A very large majority of respondents reported (agree/strongly agree) teaching and learning to be hindered by their high workload (89%), having to provide evidence of compliance with policy requirements (86%), and new administrative demands introduced by the Department (91%) (see Table 2 ).

We note the overlap in these items: administrative demands (3) and compliance with policy (2) clearly, in the view of these respondents at least, form part of workload overall (1)—as the findings presented in the previous section indicate. Conflicting demands of administrative and paperwork work, versus teaching and learning work, was reported most strongly by classroom and specialist teachers (91%) and head teachers and assistant principals (92%). Pertinent to this finding of conflict between system and classroom demands are two further questions asked in the survey: whether respondents feel their work is valued by the education department on the one hand, and by society at large on the other. Only 17% of classroom teachers (strongly/) agreed that “the Department of Education values my work”, with a very large 44% (strongly/) disagreeing, and 40% selecting “neutral”. This pattern of responses was similar for other roles (principals, specialist teachers, teaching consultants). This distinctly contrasts with reports of how society values teachers’ work, with 30% of classroom teachers (strongly/) agreeing that “the teaching profession is valued in society”, where 46% (strongly/) disagreed, and 25% were “neutral” (see Fig.  1 ). Footnote 5

Classroom teachers’ perceptions of valuing of their work by self, society and their employer (Department of Education) (% of total responses)

The attribution of workload change to centralised policy initiatives is further evidenced by respondents’ ranking of strategies that may help to manage workload in the future (Table 3 ). Most of the eleven pre-identified strategies focus on areas of additional system support. The top-ranked strategy focusses on reduction in face-to-face teaching time in order to increase time available for collaboration with colleagues. This strategy sits comfortably with the third highest, namely, providing more specialist teacher support for students with special needs. Both these strategies focus on additional relief/support to strengthen teaching and learning. These contrast with the remaining top-five ranked strategies, which variously reflect teachers’ desires for: elimination of unnecessary and cumbersome processes; more effective system-level planning to avoid imposing more demands; and ensuring consultation prior to any significant reform or initiative. The high ranking of these strategies by large numbers of NSW teachers suggests their collective analysis of the problem of workload increase has focused, not just on the challenges within their schools, but on the system frameworks that schools and teachers sit within. However, we also note that some strategies relating to “admin” support, via the hiring of additional staff, were lowly ranked and did not make it into the top five. That such strategies were ranked lower may indicate that respondents perceive the problem to be the requirements themselves more than who is being asked to complete them.

We also analysed qualitative data from the second open-ended question in the survey asking participants to expand on suggested “actions or strategies that might be taken to support work in schools”. Unlike the ranking activity, this question allowed respondents to describe any strategy they thought important or to clarify their response to the ranking list. Here we note—amongst calls for the general reduction of administrative work and increase of supports—a prevalence of commentary directly focused on policy initiatives, including those coming from the NSW Department of Education. There was an expressed need for “more resources, more support staff, better implementation of systems—stop rushing to roll out initiatives that are not thought out and tested” (#6720525953). There was similarly a view that the Department “should stop changing things all the time. See how a change impacts before changing again” (#6748477500). Authorities should “choose one or two new initiatives, rather than several, for schools to implement at any time and allow teachers to become proficient in these before bringing in further initiatives” (#6749841177). Finally, one respondent stated a desire for “trust” that “teachers are capable of thinking for themselves and making complex decisions without the extraordinary layers of bureaucracy and political interference” (#6710718550). This complemented a more generally expressed sentiment across the open responses in the survey that there should be, as one respondent put it, “less paperwork to cover someone else’s butt further up the food chain” (#6734171350).

To summarise, our findings suggest a perception of overall increase in work demands alongside reduced support. Teacher respondents attribute these workload increases to state and federal policy and associated institutions. In the next section, we discuss these findings in light of existing research and our conceptual framework.

Almost universally, respondents in this study perceived a change in workload, with a distinct increase over the five-year period from 2013 to 2017. This echoes concerns raised in research on teachers’ work and workload around Australia, and around the globe (OECD, 2019 ; Stone-Johnson, 2016 ; Thomson & Hillman, 2019 ). While TALIS data indicate that teachers’ overall working hours have increased, and that Australian teachers complete an above-average amount of administrative work, what the data presented in this article convey is that in NSW, specifically administrative work is also perceived to have increased. This coheres with literature on “datafication” in and of teaching (e.g. Hardy, 2015 ) and which map new requirements for documentation and “proving” of work, for instance through accreditation processes (Talbot, 2016 ). While change is not a bad thing, and nor is being accountable, these shifts could be questioned if they are impinging, as our data show, on key tasks within a teacher’s workday without a clear benefit. In this way, our findings connect with literature on both teacher workload, as well as datafication and accountability.

The data analysed here also speak to literature on autonomy and devolution, which as noted earlier, often works in tandem with heightened accountability. The evidence presented above indicates a perception among teachers that support provided by the Department for managing new initiatives has been reduced or is otherwise inadequate. The loss of “mid-level” supports, noted particularly in qualitative responses, reflects autonomy models elsewhere, such as in England (Ball, 1990 ), and corroborates previous findings on the impact of devolution in Australia (Fitzgerald et al., 2018 ). It is therefore noteworthy that the questions in our survey asked respondents to consider how their work had changed over the past five years, a period of time that maps on to the introduction of major reforms in NSW, including the LSLD initiative which sought to devolve greater responsibility for financial decisions and staffing to school principals. In the data we have presented, changes in workload were explicitly attributed to the introduction of new policies and initiatives during this period. The irony of this attribution in the context of a policy suite purportedly intended to “free up” the work of local actors in a political environment where “efficiency has become a kind of metavalue” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010 , p. 116), is stark. Indeed, as Crawford ( 2020 ) notes, the aim of LSLD to “reduce red tape” (one out of five goals of the policy) is one area which clearly has not been met (CESE, 2020 ). The failure of the LSLD policy led to its partial unwinding from 2021, including a gesture by the Departmental employer via a new “Quality Time Program” (NSW Government, 2022a ) to free up a small quantum of teachers’ “low-value” administrative time, and with additional time for the initial implementation phase of a new curriculum announced in October 2022 (NSW Government, 2022b ). Simultaneously, the NSW government has been asserting greater influence over curriculum, with lesson planning described by the Department as a “tax” on teachers’ time (NSW Government, 2022c ). Yet in our large data set teachers report this to be a core and deeply valued element of their work (Stacey et al., 2021 ). It appears that teachers experience the market/accountability mechanisms associated with autonomy reforms as problematic, perhaps more so than the autonomy reforms per se. Here, it is necessary to distinguish between school autonomy, principal autonomy and teacher autonomy, as reforms that have endowed school and principal autonomy have not tended to foster teacher autonomy.

Additionally, the data suggest that we may not only see in this relationship a “profound distrust” (Ball, 1990 , p. 214) of teachers by the government, but conversely, deep distrust of the government by teachers. The widely-held perception by teachers that their work is not valued by their employer and the state policy-maker, the Department of Education, was noted above (Fig.  1 ). It is highly likely that those who do not feel valued by their employer are also not likely to trust their employer. While this could be understood as a kind of worker dissatisfaction common across industries, the higher percentage of teacher respondents (nearly double) feeling valued by broader society disrupts any such rationalisation, and suggests a considerable disjuncture between employer and employee. It has long been understood that trust in the workplace is vital to good workplace performance, productivity and favourable working relations; and a dimension to which there has been much attention, not only in literature and theory, but also practice (Isaeva et al., 2019 ).

We acknowledge that the data we have presented in this article are retrospective and self-reported. While they are corroborated by a range of other data sources reflecting increases in amount and nature of work, our findings cannot necessarily be taken as “fact” and further research that tracks workload longitudinally, in addition to that documented by TALIS (OECD, 2019 ), would be beneficial. Similarly, the question of whether there have “objectively” been more policy changes during this time, or not, is not one this article can provide a definitive answer to, and again, could be a meritorious focus of further study. It is also true that, to some extent, most people would probably describe themselves as increasingly “busy” and as hard workers, within the teaching profession and beyond. This is, however, where our conceptual framework is of utility. Teachers’ perception of workload increase resonates with experiences of an increasing pace of change in modernity (Rosa, 2003 ). The “truth” of this proposition seems, at the least, to be perceived by teachers, with “policy” becoming synonymous with change (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010 ). However, this change is not necessarily “in time” with teachers themselves, conveying a disjuncture between what is being asked for, and what can be delivered, as demands are layered on top of one another. The data thereby also align with theories of governance that identify moves towards “fast policy” processes and policy “layering”. “Fast policy” is likely exacerbated through the delivery of publicly consumable “new policy” messages conveyed by news media which usually has remarkably short “newsworthiness”, and in Australia, is also fuelled by political (re-/)election cycles. Indeed, we note that the government’s recent efforts at addressing teacher time use, particularly in relation to curriculum implementation and lesson planning (NSW Government, 2022b , 2022c ), have emerged mere months before a state election is due. Additionally, the findings are consistent with other measures, including international (Thomson & Hillman, 2019 ) and Australian government (NSW Public Service Commission, 2019 ) surveys which report increasing work demands and hours. This suggests that these “perceptions” are at least felt, and also reported, consistently from an array of external sources. As the OECD ( 2019 ) study documents the issue of administrative load on teachers in numerous countries, insights from our study in Australia may inform research and practice in other locations.

Fawcett ( 2018 ) argues that there is a time and place for “fast” policy, for instance in crisis contexts. However, absent such crisis, we would argue in support for Saward’s call for “formal moments of delay” ( 2017 , p. 374) to support “slow democracy”, as a part of how policy can be effectively designed so that “collective decisions are reached” ( 2017 , p. 373). While the data presented above suggest ample resistance on the part of teachers to responsibilising policy shifts, with teachers calling upon the government to increase support and reduce demands in their work, it is worth noting that both Ball et al. ( 2012 ) in the UK and Pinto ( 2015 ) in Canada have identified the tendency for policy imposition on teachers to stifle resistance through work overload. In this way, teachers’ expression of “reform fatigue” in the data we present arguably constitutes “a form of resistance by those having to implement top-down policy”, even though it may be seen as a “form of intransigence by those wanting the policy implemented” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010 , pp. 20–21). Yet as Ball et al., ( 2012 , pp. 138–139) state of their data:

what we might call resistance, a full-blown reflexively articulated confrontation between agonistic discourses, is rare and fleeting – limited for example to moments of political or trade union action. In the mundane, in relation to the pressures of performance, in response to constant change, there is little space or time or opportunity to think differently or “against”.

Reinforcing the stifling effects of work overload has been the general shift from more militant union strategies of “resistance” to strategies of rapprochement and renewal. While teacher unions may not necessarily embrace the neoliberal logic of policy reform, they commonly do not attempt to overtly confront or challenge it (Gavin, 2019 ). Our survey constitutes an exception: providing opportunity for “voice” (Wilkinson & Barry, 2016 ) in relation to workload was an articulated NSWTF aim (McGrath-Champ et al., 2022b ). Though completing the survey momentarily—and ironically—added to teachers’ “work”, it constituted a conduit for expression of concern and resistance, evident in the nature and extent of responses and the overwhelmingly large completion-rate. Scheduled deliberately just after the start of the school year, when workload is slightly less than at many other times, teachers embraced this research, and the indication of consequent union-action, as a ready-instrument for “voice” over adverse workload and policy effects. More recently, we note that discontent with workload escalation, stalled salary renegotiations and dire staff shortages have sparked “antagonistic discourse” (Ball, 2012 ) via brief but repeated industrial strikes in 2021–2022 (NSWTF & IEU, 2022 ). This then escalated to a nation-wide ministerial summit convened by the newly-elected centre/left-wing national government with intention to devise an “action plan” on teacher shortages (Worthington, 2022 ). While a policy response to issues raised by the profession is welcomed, this may impel yet more “layering” and “fast policy”. We note, for example, the controversial intention to provide “lesson plans” for teachers in NSW as a means to address workload (NSW Government, 2022c ), a move which contradicts the “strategies” teachers call for in this article, and which may therefore be more “fast policy”.

We also note that social acceleration is “not a steady process but evolves in waves … with each new wave meeting considerable resistance as well as partial reversals”. With each wave, “cries for deceleration in the name of human needs and values are voiced but eventually die down” (Rosa, 2003 , p. 3). As such, while desynchronization may result in some moments of pause, as perhaps reflected in the use respondents made of this survey to air their concerns, these are temporary. As Rosa ( 2015 , p. 117) writes:

As in an earthquake, not all layers (of the ground) shift at the same pace … the various realms of society move at different speeds, and individual oases of deceleration repeatedly form that, like stable rock ledges in an earthquake, promise a limited stability in rapidly changing surroundings.

It is, therefore, important to give ongoing attention to the current historical and political moment of neoliberalised education policy reform, as well as how this settlement may be shifting.

With a less than certain destination, politics in modernity, argues Rosa ( 2003 , pp. 23–24), “loses its sense of direction” and “shifts to ‘muddling through’ … with increasingly temporary and provisional solutions”. In the case of NSW and its public-school teachers, such “solutions” are sometimes, but not necessarily always, temporary with many simply being added on top of one another, creating a “layering” effect. For Rosa, part of the dynamic when politics “loses its sense of direction” in this way, is to shift responsibility for decision-making elsewhere, including to the level of the individual. Policy-making in an age of acceleration is therefore tied to questions of decentralisation, accountability and responsibility; this resonates strongly with teachers’ perceptions of the shifts in their workload in NSW over the 5 years 2013 to 2017. Teacher respondents in this study attributed their workload increases primarily to new government initiatives requiring additional paperwork and administrative efforts. Given the prevalence of autonomy models of schooling today, especially in England and the United States (Keddie, 2017 ) but also elsewhere around the globe, these findings may also have significance beyond Australia.

Bringing together the theory of social acceleration and literature on theories of governance in education, such as autonomy reform and policy “layering”, is a key contribution of this article that is further enhanced through attention to recent empirical reports of workload increase. It is our view that working across these literatures enables a more detailed picture to emerge of how reform can be perceived and experienced. It also suggests a need for more attention to the temporal dimensions (and consequences) of both global and local “fast policy”. Indeed we note that, as with studies of acceleration more generally, studies of education policy do not often consider stakeholders’ perceptions of change over time, an area ripe for further research. Yet for the teachers in our study, it would seem that the very idea of “policy” is becoming synonymous with “change”. We argue that acceleration of the pace of change, as an experiential condition, is reflected in teachers’ reports of a growing workload and attribution of this to policy change, an assessment which we have argued has some resonance with the identification of “fast policy” and policy “layering” as modes of education governance. This article makes a theoretical contribution to conceptualisations of policy development and change by linking these modes with subjective experiences of acceleration, speaking across a number of debates within the broader literature around education governance, rationalist approaches to policy development, individual subjectivity, and policy enactment “on the ground”.

Our analysis indicates some cause for concern, bringing the effects of “fast policy” processes into question. Regardless of whether or not it is objectively “true” that we are indeed seeing more frequent and numerous changes over shorter periods of time, teachers’ perceptions of this are important in their own right. While literature has argued that neoliberal reform reflects a lack of trust in teachers for many years (e.g. Ball, 1990 ), what our findings indicate is that the reciprocal may also be true: teachers perceive that they are not valued by their government employer and it is logical that teachers reciprocate with lack of trust in government. This sense of a rift between teachers and government may also reflect some resistance among teachers in an age of competition and performativity; and may, in the long term be able to stir positive change in how policy is developed. Building on Saward ( 2017 ) and Shergold ( 2015 ), we argue for moves towards “slow democracy” in education, with consultation not only with key government groups but with teachers themselves, through a shift toward respectful and supportive—rather than onerous and responsibilising—governance structures.

In Australia, school education is a residual power of the states and territories. As such, it is the states which have primary responsibility over the funding of public schools.

To ensure confidentiality of member contact information.

Broad overall results of the questionnaire were reported to the Union (McGrath-Champ et al., 2018 ).

In 'casual’ work, a teacher is employed on a day-to-day basis to meet relief needs within the school. In some contexts, this is referred to as ‘substitute’ (USA) or ‘supply’ (UK).

These data are pre-COVID-19 and the home schooling necessitated by the pandemic provided a closer parental ‘window’ onto teachers’ work though the longer-term effects of this on the valuing of teachers’ work is unclear.

Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology . Routledge.

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools . Routledge.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teachers soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18 (2), 215–228.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bridges, S., & Searle, A. (2011). Changing workloads of primary school teachers: “I seem to live on the edge of chaos.” School Leadership and Management, 31 (5), 313–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614943

Burrow, R., Williams, R., & Thomas, D. (2020). Stressed, depressed and exhausted: Six years as a teacher in UK state education. Work, Employment and Society . https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020903040

Capano, G. (2019). Reconceptualizing layering - from mode of institutional change to mode of institutional design: Types and outputs. Public Administration, 97 , 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12583

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) (2020). Local schools, local decisions evaluation final report . NSW Department of Education. Retrieved from cese.nsw.gov.au.

Chitty, C. (2013). New Labour and secondary education, 1994–2010 . Palgrave Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Connell, R. (1985). Teachers’ work . George Allen and Unwin.

Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: An essay on the market agenda and its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54 (2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.776990

Crawford, M. (2020). Local schools, local decisions: Needs-based equity funding . Audit Office of New South Wales.

Ezzy, D. (2003). Qualitative analysis . Taylor and Francis.

Google Scholar  

Fawcett, P. (2018). Doing democracy and governance in the fast lane? Towards a “politics of time” in an accelerated polity. Australian Journal of Political Science, 53 (4), 548–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2018.1517862

Fitzgerald, S., Stacey, M., McGrath-Champ, S., Parding, K., & Rainnie, A. (2018). Devolution, market dynamics and the Independent Public School initiative in Western Australia: ‘Winning back’ what has been lost? Journal of Education Policy , 33 (5), 662–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1412502

Fitzgerald, S., McGrath-Champ, S., Stacey, M., Wilson, R., & Gavin, M. (2019). Intensification of teachers’ work under devolution: A ‘tsunami’ of paperwork. Journal of Industrial Relations , 65 (1), 613–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185618801396

Gavin, M. (2019). Working industrially or professionally? What strategies should teacher unions use to improve teacher salaries in neoliberal times? Labour and Industry , 29 (1), 19–33.

Gavin, M., McGrath-Champ, S., Wilson, R., Fitzgerald, S., & Stacey, M. (2022). Teacher workload in Australia: National reports of intensification and its threats to democracy. In S. Riddle, A. Heffernan, & D. Bright (Eds.), New perspectives on education for democracy: Creative responses to local and global challenges (pp. 110–123). Routledge.

Gobby, B., Keddie, A., & Blackmore, J. (2018). Professionalism and competing responsibilities: Moderating competitive performativity in school autonomy reform. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 50 (3), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2017.1399864

Hardy, I. (2015). Data, numbers and accountability: The complexity, nature and effects of data use in schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 63 (4), 467–486.

Hasim, A. K., Torres, C., & Kumar, J. M. (2021). Is more autonomy better? How school actors perceive school autonomy and effectiveness in context. Journal of Educational Change . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09439-x

Holloway, J., & Keddie, A. (2019). Competing locals in an autonomous schooling system: The fracturing of the “social” in social justice. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 48 (5), 786–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219836681

Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Rayner, J. (2018). Understanding policy designs over time. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Routledge handbook of policy design (pp. 136–144). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Isaeva, N., Hughes, C., & Saunders, N. M. K. (2019). Trust, distrust and human resources management. In K. Townsend, K. Cafferkey, A. M. McDermott, & T. Dundon (Eds.), Elgar introduction to theories of human resources and employment relations (pp. 247–263). Edward Elgar.

Keddie, A. (2017). School autonomy reform and public education in Australia: Implications for social justice. Australian Educational Researcher, 44 , 373–390.

Keddie, A., Gobby, B., & Wilkins, C. (2018). School autonomy reform in Queensland: Governance, freedom and the entrepreneurial leader. School Leadership and Management, 38 (4), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1411901

Kim, K. (2019). Teachers’ administrative workload crowding out instructional activities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39 (1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1572592

Lewis, S., & Hogan, A. (2019). Reform first and ask questions later? The implications of (fast) schooling policy and “silver bullet” solutions. Critical Studies in Education, 60 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1219961

McGrath-Champ, S., Wilson, R., Stacey, M., & Fitzgerald, S. (2018). Understanding work in schools . Surry Hills, NSW: NSW Teachers Federation. https://www.nswtf.org.au/files/18438_uwis_digital.pdf .

McGrath-Champ, S., Fitzgerald, S., Gavin, M., Stacey, M., & Wilson, R. (2022a) Labour commodification in the employment heartland: Union responses to teachers’ temporary work. Work Employment and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170211069854

McGrath-Champ, S., Gavin, M., Stacey, M., & Wilson, R. (2022b). Collaborating for policy impact: Academic-practitioner collaboration in industrial relations research. Journal of Industrial Relations , 64 (5), 759–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221856221094887

Morgan, M., & Craith, D. N. (2015). Workload, stress and resilience of primary teachers . Irish National Teachers Assocation. https://www.into.ie/app/uploads/2019/07/WorkloadReport_Sept15.pdf .

NSW DEC. (2011). Local schools, local decisions . NSW Department of Education and Communities.

NSW DEC. (2017). Early action for success. http://www.dec.nsw.gov.au/about-the-department/our-reforms/early-action-for-success .

NSW Public Service Commission. (2019). People matter. https://www.psc.nsw.gov.au/reports---data/people-matter-employee-survey/previous-surveys/people-matter-employee-survey-2019/education/education .

NSW Education Standards Authority. (2019). Retaining work samples. https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/11-12/Understanding-the-curriculum/awarding-grades/retaining-work-samples .

NSW Government. (2022a). Quality time program. https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/quality-time/quality-time-program .

NSW Government. (2022b). Extra time for teachers. https://education.nsw.gov.au/news/latest-news/extra-time-for-teachers .

NSW Government. (2022c). Number one tax on teachers’ time solved. https://education.nsw.gov.au/news/latest-news/number-one-tax-on-teachers-time-solved .

NSWTF. (2017). Court action re: permanent employment for casual and temporary teachers. https://www.nswtf.org.au/files/court_action_re_permanent_employment_for_casual_and_temporary_teachers.pdf .

NSWTF & IEU. (2022). Joint media release: Public and Catholic school teachers to strike on 30 June . Avaiable at https://news.nswtf.org.au/blog/media-release/2022/06/public-and-catholic-school-teachers-strike-30-june . Accessed on 5 October 2022.

OECD. (2018). Indicator D4: How much time do teachers spend teaching? In Education at a glance 2018: OECD indicators . https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2018_eag-2018-en#:~:text=Education%20at%20a%20Glance%3A%20OECD,a%20number%20of%20partner%20countries .

OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume 1): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners . OECD Publishing.

Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2015). Fast policy: Experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberalism . University of Minnesota Press.

Pinto, L. E. (2015). Fear and loathing in neoliberalism: School leader responses to policy layers. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47 (2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.996869

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system . Basic Books.

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy . Routledge.

Rosa, H. (2003). Social acceleration: Ethical and political consequences of a desynchronized high-speed society. Constellations, 10 (1), 3–33.

Rosa, H. (2015). Acceleration: A new theory of modernity . Columbia University Press.

Saward, M. (2017). Agency, design and “slow democracy.” Time and Society, 26 (3), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X15584254

Shergold, P. (2015). Learning from failure: Why large government policy initiatives have gone so badly wrong in the past and how the chances of success in the future can be improved. Western Sydney University publishing. http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/learning-from-failure .

Stacey, M., Fitzgerald, S., Gavin, M., McGrath-Champ, S., & Wilson, R. (2021). Will the quality time action plan reduce teacher workload? EduResearch Matters, 23 September. https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=10768

Stacey, M., Wilson, R., & McGrath-Champ, S. (2022). Triage in teaching: The nature and impact of workload in schools, Asia Pacific Journal of Education , 42 (2), 772–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1777938 .

Stone-Johnson, C. (2016). Intensification and isolation: Alienated teaching and collaborative professional relationships in the accountability context. Journal of Educational Change, 17 , 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9255-3

Talbot, D. (2016). Evidence for no-one: Standards, accreditation and transformed teaching work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58 , 80–89.

Thompson, G., & Cook, I. (2014). Education policy-making and time. Journal of Education Policy, 29 (5), 700–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.875225

Thompson, G., & Cook, I. (2017). The politics of teaching time in disciplinary and control societies. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38 (1), 26–37.

Thomson, S., & Hillman, K. (2019). TALIS 2018 Australian report: Volume 1: Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006andcontext=talis .

Wilkins, C., Gobby, B., & Keddie, A. (2020). The neo-performative teacher: School reform, entrepreneurialism and the pursuit of educational equity. British Journal of Educational Studies . https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2020.1739621

Wilkinson, A., & Barry, M. (2016). Voices from across the divide: An industrial relations perspective on employee voice. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 30 (3–4), 338–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002216649899

Wilson, R., Stacey, M., & McGrath-Champ, S. (2020). Teachers’ work during the COVID-19 pandemic: Shifts, challenges and opportunities . Occasional Papers #169. Centre for Strategic Education. https://www.cse.edu.au/content/teachers%E2%80%99-work-during-covid-19-pandemic-shifts-challenges-and-opportunities .

Worthington, B. (2022). Education ministers are in unison on fixing the teacher shortage crisis—but is that enough for a plan to materialise? ABC News. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-13/education-ministers-jason-clare-teacher-shortage-conditions/101327776 , Accessed on 5 October 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results received funding from the Australian Education Union (New South Wales Teachers Federation Branch) under Contract Number CT20810. We gratefully acknowledge advice on the paper by Scott Fitzgerald, Mihajla Gavin and Greg Thompson, although the content of the paper rests with the authors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

Meghan Stacey

Work and Organisational Studies, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

Susan McGrath-Champ

Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

Rachel Wilson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan McGrath-Champ .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Stacey, M., McGrath-Champ, S. & Wilson, R. Teacher attributions of workload increase in public sector schools: Reflections on change and policy development. J Educ Change 24 , 971–993 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09476-0

Download citation

Accepted : 23 November 2022

Published : 06 January 2023

Issue Date : November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09476-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Exploring the impact of workload, organizational support, and work engagement on teachers’ psychological wellbeing: a structural equation modeling approach

Yonggang wang.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Edited by: Kok Ban Teoh, ViTrox College, Malaysia

Reviewed by: Ooi Lyn Liq, ViTrox College, Malaysia

Muhamad Asrin Bin Anuar, ViTrox College, Malaysia

Aeisyah Ahmad Khairul, ViTrox College, Malaysia

Kia Hui Gan, INTI International College Penang, Malaysia

*Correspondence: Yonggang Wang, [email protected]

Received 2023 Nov 29; Accepted 2023 Dec 27; Collection date 2023.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Introduction

This study delves into the intricate relationships among workload, perceived organizational support, work engagement, and psychological wellbeing within the context of 572 secondary school teachers in China.

Utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM), this research rigorously examined construct validity and the intricate interrelationships among latent variables. The data were collected and analyzed to determine the associations between workload, perceived organizational support, work engagement, and psychological wellbeing.

The findings unveiled compelling negative associations between workload and perceived organizational support, workload and work engagement, and workload and psychological wellbeing among the secondary school teachers. Conversely, positive correlations emerged between perceived organizational support, work engagement, and psychological wellbeing. The structural equation modeling analysis demonstrated strong fit indices, affirming robust alignment with the anticipated models.

Mediation analyses further elucidated the significance of work engagement as a mediator in the relationships between workload and psychological wellbeing, as well as between perceived organizational support and psychological wellbeing. These results underscore the pivotal role of work engagement in shaping the impact of workload and organizational support on the psychological wellbeing of secondary school teachers in Chinese educational settings.

Keywords: teacher wellbeing, workload, organizational support, work engagement, secondary school teachers, structural equation modeling, literature review

In the landscape of modern education, cultivating an environment that fosters the psychological wellbeing of teachers stands as a big challenge. Teacher wellbeing encompasses a multifaceted spectrum, embracing not only emotional and professional aspects but also profoundly influencing the quality of teaching, student outcomes, and the overall educational ecosystem ( Morin et al., 2017 ; Han et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2023a ). Within the complex set of factors shaping teacher wellbeing, three core constructs have garnered substantial attention: teacher workload, perceived organizational support, and work engagement ( McInerney et al., 2015 ; Arslan, 2018 ).

Teacher workload encompasses the numerous responsibilities inherent in teaching, ranging from planning and delivering lessons to administrative duties. Research consistently highlights the burdensome nature of high workload, associating it with heightened stress levels, diminished job satisfaction, and burnout among educators ( Butt and Lance, 2005 ; Johnson et al., 2005 ; Hakanen et al., 2006 ). Conversely, perceived organizational support signifies the degree to which teachers feel valued, appreciated, and supported by their educational institutions. Studies underline the critical role of perceived support in supporting teachers’ wellbeing by reducing burnout and enhancing job satisfaction ( Eisenberger et al., 2001 ; Collie et al., 2015 ).

At the heart of this complex interplay is work engagement—an essential aspect of an educator’s professional life. Work engagement represents a state of positive fulfillment, characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption in one’s work ( Schaufeli et al., 2002 ). Engaged teachers exhibit resilience, passion, and a sense of purpose in their roles, ultimately shaping a favorable and productive learning environment for students. Work engagement emerges as a vital mediator within the nexus between teacher workload, organizational support, and overall wellbeing ( Bakker and Demerouti, 2007 ; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009 ).

Despite the acknowledgment of these constructs, there exists a notable void in empirical investigations that concurrently explore the complex relationships between teacher workload, organizational support, work engagement, and the psychological wellbeing of teachers. This study seeks to bridge this gap by exactly examining a comprehensive model that examines the direct and mediated connections among these critical variables. By exploring these complex relationships, this research seeks to offer detailed insights into the mechanisms influencing teacher psychological wellbeing, thereby contributing to the existing body of knowledge. Additionally, the findings from this study have the potential to inform evidence-based interventions and policies aimed at fostering the psychological wellbeing and professional efficacy of educators within educational settings, ultimately enhancing the quality of education at large.

Literature review

Psychological wellbeing.

Psychological wellbeing within the workplace is considered a pivotal determinant influencing employees’ overall satisfaction, performance, and health in their professional context ( Warr, 1990 ; Keyes, 2002 ). This multidimensional construct encompasses several facets, such as feelings of competence, autonomy, positive emotions, and the absence of psychological distress ( Ryff and Keyes, 1995 ; Deci and Ryan, 2008 ). Rooted in an individual’s perceptions of their work situation, it includes both hedonic (pleasure-based) and eudaimonic (meaning-based) aspects of wellbeing ( Ryan and Deci, 2001 ; Quinn and Earnshaw, 2013 ).

Keyes (2002) introduced a dual-continuum model, differentiating between mental illness and mental health, highlighting that individuals can experience both mental illness (e.g., anxiety, depression) and mental health concurrently. Psychological wellbeing at work aligns closely with the mental health continuum, emphasizing positive functioning, optimal experiences, and a sense of fulfillment in the workplace ( Keyes, 2002 ; Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie, 2012 ).

Numerous studies have emphasized the significant association between psychological wellbeing at work and positive outcomes, including heightened job satisfaction, enhanced job performance, increased organizational commitment, and reduced turnover intentions ( Wright and Cropanzano, 2000 ; Harter et al., 2002 ; Molero Jurado et al., 2018 ). Moreover, research posits a reciprocal relationship between psychological wellbeing and organizational outcomes, suggesting that improvements in wellbeing can positively impact organizational effectiveness ( Judge et al., 2001 ). In the educational domain, particularly among teachers, psychological wellbeing holds immense importance, significantly influencing job satisfaction, motivation, and classroom effectiveness ( Renshaw et al., 2015 ; Chitra and Karunanidhi, 2021 ). Given the demanding nature of the teaching profession, understanding and enhancing psychological wellbeing among educators are crucial for fostering conducive work environments and enhancing overall educational quality ( Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2017 ; Burić et al., 2019 ; Bardach et al., 2022 ).

Recent research has delved deeper into the complex interplay impacting mental wellness in contemporary workplaces. Fotiadis et al. (2019) explored the moderating effects of psychological self-governance, proficiency, and interconnectedness in the relationship between work-life balance and mental health. Their findings shed light on how an individual’s perception of psychological self-governance, competence, and social connections mediates the impact of work-life balance on overall mental health. Similarly, Prasad et al. (2020a) investigated remote employment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hyderabad’s information technology sector. Their study emphasized the key role of the organizational atmosphere, opportunities, and challenges in influencing the mental wellbeing of remote workers. This investigation highlighted the significance of cultivating a supportive and adaptable organizational climate to fortify the wellbeing of remote staff.

Furthermore, Obrenovic et al. (2020) explored the complex relationship between work-family tensions, psychological safety, and mental health within job performance models. Their findings highlighted the substantial impact of work-family tensions on both psychological safety and overall mental wellness, emphasizing the imperative need to address work-family tensions to enhance employee mental wellbeing and job efficiency. Additionally, Prasad et al. (2020b) conducted an empirical analysis focusing on occupational stress, remote work, and their effects on the mental wellbeing of information technology employees. Their study revealed the detrimental impacts of occupational stress and remote employment on employees’ mental wellbeing, highlighting the urgent need for interventions to alleviate stress and support the wellbeing of remote workers.

Overall, the literature presents a comprehensive view of psychological wellbeing within the workplace, highlighting its multifaceted nature and significant impact on employee satisfaction, performance, and overall organizational effectiveness. Recent studies have further enriched our understanding, delving into various aspects of psychological wellbeing and their intricate connections within modern work environments. However, despite the extensive of research exploring psychological wellbeing in diverse contexts, a noticeable gap persists within the educational setting, particularly among Chinese teachers.

Teacher workload

The academic exploration of teacher workload has been a main focus within the educational landscape ( Smith and Bourke, 1992 ). This workload, including numerous instructional, administrative, and professional responsibilities ( Johnson et al., 2005 ; Ingersoll and Strong, 2011 ; Chughati and Perveen, 2013 ), includes tasks like lesson planning, curriculum development, and classroom teaching, which have increased due to standardized testing and accountability measures ( Lauermann and Karabenick, 2011 ; Darling-Hammond, 2017 ). Administrative duties, such as grading and compliance reporting, add intricacy and take over the time available for direct instructional activities ( Johnson et al., 2005 ; Hanushek et al., 2019 ). Additionally, the continuous need for professional development requires teachers to stay updated with instructional advancements, further elevating their workload ( Ingersoll and Strong, 2011 ; Opfer and Pedder, 2011 ). These demanding workloads have been associated with increased stress, burnout, and job dissatisfaction among teachers, potentially impacting their mental health ( Maslach et al., 2001 ; Johnson et al., 2005 ; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010 ).

In the complex link between teacher workload and psychological wellbeing, perceived organizational support (POS) stands out as a crucial factor. Teachers who perceive robust backing from their educational institutions tend to manage their workload more effectively, leading to reduced stress and burnout ( Runhaar et al., 2013 ; Prasad et al., 2020b ). Recent research has further explored the intricate relationships between teacher workload, perceived organizational support, and psychological wellbeing. Magalong and Torreon (2021) highlighted the key role of workload in shaping the holistic wellbeing of teachers across personal and professional dimensions. Pan et al. (2023) identified teacher training readiness, autonomy, and workload as key predictors of teacher wellbeing. Furthermore, Jerrim and Sims (2021) emphasized the nonlinear impact of specific teaching tasks on teacher wellbeing, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding of workload components. Granziera et al. (2021) approached teacher wellbeing through the lens of the JD-R theory, providing a theoretical framework to comprehend the interplay between job demands, resources, and teacher wellbeing. Notably, Collie et al. (2015) developed the Teacher Wellbeing Scale, encompassing organizational wellbeing, and highlighted the role of perceived organizational support in shaping teacher wellbeing.

Together, these studies emphasize the multidimensional nature of factors influencing teacher wellbeing, emphasizing the complexity of teacher workload and the important role of perceived organizational support. This synthesis of findings significantly contributes to understanding the intersection between workload and organizational support, impacting the psychological wellbeing of teachers within educational contexts.

Perceived organizational support

Perceived Organizational Support (POS) stands as an essential aspect in elucidating the complex interactions between educators and their respective educational institutions ( Kurtessis et al., 2017 ). It encompasses employees’ perceptions of their organization valuing their contributions and caring about their wellbeing ( Eisenberger et al., 1986 ). Within the teaching domain, POS holds significant relevance, directly influencing job satisfaction, commitment, and the overall wellbeing of teachers within their educational settings ( Eisenberger et al., 2001 ; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002 ).

Perceived Organizational Support comprises several dimensions, including support perceived from supervisors, colleagues, and the fairness of organizational policies. Teachers feeling supported by their immediate supervisors are inclined to experience a positive work environment and heightened job satisfaction ( Eisenberger et al., 1997 ; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002 ; Malik and Noreen, 2015 ). Equally crucial is the perceived support from colleagues, enhancing collaborative relationships that contribute to a positive organizational climate and influence teacher engagement and commitment ( Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002 ; Eisenberger et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, the perception of fairness in organizational policies correlates with increased commitment and job satisfaction among teachers ( Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002 ; Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ; Chiang and Hsieh, 2012 ; Sudibjo and Manihuruk, 2022 ).

Extensive research consistently indicates a positive correlation between POS and teacher wellbeing. Teachers perceiving higher organizational support levels report lower stress, burnout, and job dissatisfaction ( Eisenberger et al., 2001 ; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002 ). Additionally, POS acts as a protective mechanism, decreasing the negative effects of stressors, such as high workload and challenging student behaviors, on teacher psychological wellbeing ( Runhaar et al., 2013 ; Kurtessis et al., 2017 ). Crucially, POS has been identified as a potential mediator in the relationship between teacher workload and wellbeing. A supportive organizational environment may decrease the negative effects of high workload on teachers, contributing to increased job satisfaction and positive work engagement ( Alfes et al., 2013 ; Cullen et al., 2014 ).

An array of scholarly works has contributed to understanding the crucial role organizational support plays in shaping the psychological wellbeing of teachers. Malik and Noreen’s (2015) study investigated the complex interactions involving POS, affective wellbeing, and occupational stress, highlighting POS as a moderator in influencing the connection between affective wellbeing and occupational stress. Similarly, Journell’s (2023) doctoral dissertation scrutinized correlations among organizational support, teacher wellbeing, and resilience among secondary school educators, offering insights into the nuanced linkages between organizational support and the wellbeing and resilience of teachers.

Feni’s (2022) research focused on examining the influence of perceived organizational support and psychological capital on the psychological wellbeing of teachers. This dissertation enriched the understanding of how organizational support and psychological capital shape the psychological wellbeing of educators. Sudibjo and Manihuruk’s (2022) study explored the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring how happiness at work and perceived organizational support impact teachers’ mental health through job satisfaction. This research provided valuable insights into the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between happiness at work, organizational support, and mental health during tumultuous times.

Overall, these studies highlight the main influence of perceived organizational support on the psychological wellbeing of teachers. Whether moderating stress effects, contributing to resilience, or interacting with other psychological factors, organizational support emerges as a central element in nurturing the overall mental health of educators. Understanding these intricate relationships is crucial for devising interventions and policies aimed at fostering the wellbeing of teachers across diverse educational contexts.

Work engagement

Work engagement represents a lively and positive mental state characterized by vigor, dedication, and immersion in one’s professional tasks in various domains ( Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Bakker et al., 2014 ; Pérez-Fuentes et al., 2018 ). In the realm of education, work engagement reflects educators’ holistic investment–physically, cognitively, and emotionally–in their professional roles ( Schaufeli et al., 2006 ; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ; Knight et al., 2017 ).

The components constituting work engagement encompass vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor embodies high energy levels, mental resilience, and a proactive approach to work, often observed in teachers displaying enthusiasm, persistence, and zest in tackling challenges ( Schaufeli et al., 2006 ; Li et al., 2023 ). Dedication involves a profound sense of significance, enthusiasm, and purpose in work, reflecting teachers’ commitment and fulfillment in contributing to students’ educational development ( Schaufeli et al., 2006 ; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ). Absorption indicates complete immersion and focus on work, leading teachers to experience a state of flow where time becomes inconspicuous, reflecting intrinsic motivation derived from the rewards and challenges of their profession ( Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2023b ).

Extensive research consistently highlights a positive association between work engagement and teacher wellbeing ( Lesener et al., 2020 ; Liu et al., 2023 ). Engaged educators are prone to experiencing heightened job satisfaction, reduced burnout, and improved psychological wellbeing ( Schaufeli et al., 2006 ; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ; Knight et al., 2017 ; Fathi et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, the positive outcomes of work engagement extend beyond individual wellbeing, influencing the overall learning environment and ultimately impacting student outcomes ( Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ).

The role of POS emerges as crucial in fostering work engagement among educators. A supportive organizational environment enhances teachers’ feelings of value and engagement in their professional roles ( Eisenberger et al., 2001 ; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ; Bakker et al., 2011 ; Derakhshan et al., 2023 ). POS serves as a catalyst, creating an atmosphere beneficial to the evolution and sustenance of work engagement among educators.

A convergence of diverse research endeavors sheds light on the intricate associations between teacher work engagement and the broader spectrum of wellbeing. For instance, Sarath and Manikandan’s (2014) exploration indicated a mutually reinforcing relationship between work engagement and the wellbeing of educators, highlighting how involvement in professional tasks intertwines intricately with teachers’ holistic wellbeing. In extending this discourse, Greenier et al. (2021) investigated the impact of emotion regulation on psychological wellbeing within the framework of work engagement among English language educators, offering insights into the emotional dimensions shaping teacher wellbeing. Zeng et al. (2019) investigated the influence of teachers’ growth mindset on work engagement within the Chinese educational context, emphasizing the role of cognitive factors in shaping teacher wellbeing. Rusu and Colomeischi (2020) explored the positivity ratio and wellbeing among teachers, highlighting the importance of positive psychological states in fostering work engagement and overall wellbeing. Han et al. (2020) scrutinized the influence of challenging job demands and resources on the wellbeing of university teachers, revealing the mediating role of teacher efficacy in the relationship between work engagement and wellbeing.

Collectively, these studies offer a comprehensive perspective on the multifaceted relationship between teacher work engagement and wellbeing. From emotional dimensions to cognitive factors, and from challenges to resources, the research presents a comprehensive view of how engagement in work contributes to the overall psychological wellbeing of educators across diverse educational settings. Understanding these intricacies is pivotal in informing interventions and strategies aimed at enhancing the wellbeing of educators.

The aim of this research is to thoroughly examine psychological wellbeing, teacher workload, perceived organizational support (POS), and work engagement in educational settings. By reviewing extensive literature in these areas, this study aims to clarify how these factors are connected and influence teachers’ psychological wellbeing. Using a structural equation modeling approach, the research seeks to understand how psychological wellbeing, workload, organizational support, and work engagement intersect and affect educators’ overall mental health and satisfaction. Table 1 summarizes the main findings related to psychological wellbeing, teacher workload, perceived organizational support, and work engagement, highlighting their connections and impact on teacher wellbeing in educational settings.

Summary literature review.

The present study: hypotheses

In this section, we explain the hypotheses guiding our research, drawing from an extensive body of existing literature to theoretically prove and support each hypothesis in the hypothesized model (see Figure 1 ).

The Hypothesized Model.

H1: Teacher Workload is Directly Related to Teacher Wellbeing.

The proposed hypothesis suggests a direct correlation between teacher workload and teacher wellbeing. Numerous studies have consistently highlighted the profound impact of teacher workload on their overall wellbeing ( Collie et al., 2015 ; Granziera et al., 2021 ; Jerrim and Sims, 2021 ; Magalong and Torreon, 2021 ). The demands imposed on teachers, comprising both time-intensive tasks and substantial cognitive efforts, have been associated with heightened stress levels and burnout, exerting a negative influence on their wellbeing ( Kyriacou, 2001 ; Hakanen et al., 2006 ; Pan et al., 2023 ). These findings agree with the conservation of resources theory, which posits that excessive demands, such as a high workload, may deplete an individual’s resources, consequently leading to decreased wellbeing ( Hobfoll, 1989 ). Therefore, based on this substantial body of evidence, we hypothesize a direct and adverse relationship between teacher workload and teacher wellbeing.

H2: Organizational Support is Directly Related to Teacher Wellbeing.

Our second hypothesis posits a direct relationship between organizational support and teacher wellbeing. Empirical evidence consistently underscores the essential role of perceived organizational support as a determinant of teacher wellbeing ( Malik and Noreen, 2015 ; Feni, 2022 ; Sudibjo and Manihuruk, 2022 ; Journell, 2023 ). When educators perceive robust support from their educational institutions, it positively influences their job satisfaction, commitment, and overall wellbeing ( Eisenberger et al., 2001 ; Sudibjo and Manihuruk, 2022 ). Rooted in social exchange theory, this hypothesis suggests that employees reciprocate supportive actions with increased commitment and wellbeing ( Eisenberger et al., 1986 ). Hence, grounded in this comprehensive empirical support, we hypothesize a direct and favorable relationship between organizational support and teacher wellbeing.

H3: Work Engagement Mediates the Relationship Between Teacher Workload and Teacher Wellbeing.

Drawing from the JD-R model, our third hypothesis suggests work engagement as a mediator in the relationship between teacher workload and teacher wellbeing ( Bakker and Demerouti, 2007 ). Teacher workload, viewed as a job demand, is suggested to impact work engagement as a resource that can buffer the adverse impacts of these demands ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007 ). Empirical research across various occupational settings has demonstrated the mediating role of work engagement between job demands and wellbeing ( Schaufeli et al., 2009 ; Koroglu and Ozmen, 2022 ). Therefore, we propose that work engagement mediates the association between teacher workload and teacher wellbeing, constituting a significant facet of this interplay.

H4: Work Engagement Mediates the Relationship Between Organizational Support and Teacher Wellbeing.

The fourth hypothesis posits work engagement as a mediator between organizational support and teacher wellbeing. A substantial body of literature supports the notion that organizational support enhances work engagement, thereby contributing to improved wellbeing ( Schaufeli et al., 2006 ; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ; Sarath and Manikandan, 2014 ; Zeng et al., 2019 ; Han et al., 2020 ; Rusu and Colomeischi, 2020 ; Greenier et al., 2021 ). Organizational support, conceptualized as a job resource, nurtures a conducive environment that fosters work engagement ( Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009 ). Guided by the JD-R model, this hypothesis proposes that organizational support significantly contributes to enhanced work engagement, subsequently influencing overall teacher wellbeing ( Bakker and Demerouti, 2007 ). Hence, we hypothesize that work engagement mediates the link between organizational support and teacher wellbeing, including a critical mechanism within this intricate relationship.

Materials and methods

Participants.

The investigation comprised 572 teachers employed across secondary schools in the Southwestern region of China between January 2023 and June 2023. The participants were purposefully selected during educational workshops and seminars held at various academic institutions across the region. Utilizing a purposive sampling technique, researchers invited willing participants to partake in a comprehensive questionnaire survey. Before engaging in the survey, participants provided explicit written consent. The survey instrument was administered in person by the research team.

Of the total participants, there were 138 male teachers (24.1%), 425 female teachers (74.3%), and 9 individuals for whom gender data was not available. Disciplinary distribution indicated that 236 educators specialized in language arts (41.3%), 167 in mathematics (29.2%), and 169 in various other subjects such as English, science, and music (29.5%). Additionally, 18 educators did not specify their subject. Concerning tenure, 132 educators (23.1%) reported teaching for 7 years or less, 120 (21.0%) taught between 8 and 15 years, 160 (28.0%) taught within the range of 16 to 23 years, and 160 (28.0%) had more than 24 years of teaching experience. Geographically, 132 educators (23.1%) hailed from rural school settings, while 440 (76.9%) were affiliated with urban or suburban educational institutions.

Workload load scale

The study employed the Workload Scale (ECT) developed by Calderón-de et al. (2018) , which delves into both quantitative and qualitative aspects of workload. This scale comprises six items distributed randomly concerning their content and is presented in an ordinal format. Respondents were required to rate these items on a five-point scale: 0 (Never), 1 (Almost never), 2 (Sometimes), 3 (Quite often), and 4 (Very often: every day). A cumulative score was calculated by summing the responses to the items. A high level of internal consistency (α = 0.82) was observed in our assessment of the ECT, signifying the coherence and reliability of the scale’s items in evaluating workload components.

Organizational support scale

The assessment of perceived organizational support utilized the scale developed by Ling et al. (2006) . This scale employed a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly oppose” to 6 = “Strongly approve.” Initially comprising 20 items and three dimensions, four items were excluded based on the reliability and validity analyses conducted before the survey. The elimination of these items was essential to preserve the scale’s reliability and validity. With a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0.87, this scale demonstrated a strong internal coherence, affirming its reliability in evaluating support perceptions.

Work engagement scale

To measure work engagement among participants, the study utilized the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) designed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) . This scale encompasses three core components: “Vigor,” “Dedication,” and “Absorption.” Comprising 17 items, respondents assessed each item on a 7-point rating scale. A sample item is “At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well.” UWES exhibited a commendable level of internal consistency in our study, recording a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0.89.

Psychological well-being scale

The assessment of psychological wellbeing at work utilized the questionnaire developed by Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie (2012) , known as the Psychological Wellbeing at Work (PWBW) inventory. This instrument measures five main dimensions: “Interpersonal Fit at Work,” “Thriving at Work,” “Feeling of Competency at Work,” “Perceived Recognition at Work,” and “Desire for Involvement at Work.” Comprising 25 items, respondents rated each item on a 6-point scale, ranging from 0 = Disagree to 5 = Completely Agree. A sample item includes “I feel that my work efforts are appreciated.” The PWBW inventory showed high internal reliability (α = 0.88) in our analysis, ensuring consistent measurement of wellbeing facets among respondents.

Data analysis

The data analysis process encompassed SPSS version 28.0 and AMOS version 26.0 for comprehensive examination. Initially, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to assess the construct validity of each scale utilized in the study ( Brown, 2006 ). Subsequently, descriptive statistics were computed, including mean (M) and standard deviation (SD), while correlations among variables were determined using SPSS.

To test the formulated hypotheses, the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was utilized, along with mediation analysis. The assessment of model fit employed several indices, namely the chi-square statistic (χ2), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and comparative fit index (CFI). For determining acceptable data fit, the study employed the criteria suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) , which considered a combination of CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, and RMSEA < 0.1 as the cutoff thresholds.

Moreover, to ascertain mediation effects, a bootstrapping method following Hayes (2009) was employed. This technique was instrumental in detecting and estimating the significance of mediation effects within the structural model.

Descriptive statistics for the study variables, as well as their correlations, are presented in Table 2 . The mean and standard deviation (SD) for workload, organizational support, work engagement, and wellbeing were 4.02 (0.58), 3.10 (0.89), 3.78 (0.70), and 4.20 (0.65), respectively.

Descriptive statistics and correlations.

* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

Regarding the correlations, workload demonstrated a significant negative association with organizational support ( r = −0.24, p < 0.05), as did workload with work engagement ( r = −0.18, p < 0.05) and workload with wellbeing ( r = −0.35, p < 0.01). Notably, organizational support exhibited a positive and significant correlation with work engagement ( r = 0.42, p < 0.01) and wellbeing ( r = 0.54, p < 0.01). Additionally, a positive correlation was observed between work engagement and wellbeing ( r = 0.48, p < 0.01). These findings suggest significant associations among the variables, highlighting the interconnected nature of workload, organizational support, work engagement, and psychological wellbeing among Chinese teachers.

Following the preliminary data screening, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was deployed to appraise the construct validity inherent in the measurement models. In assessing the adequacy of these models, various indices indicative of goodness of fit were employed. These measurement models encompassed latent constructs such as workload, organizational support, work engagement, and psychological wellbeing.

Initially, upon analysis, certain measurement models displayed inadequate fit to the collected data. Consequently, adjustments were undertaken to enhance their congruence with the empirical data. To achieve this, a strategic alteration approach was adopted. Specifically, three items from the wellbeing scale and two items from the work engagement scale were removed owing to their lower factor loadings, falling below the threshold of 0.40. Furthermore, two correlational pathways were introduced between error terms associated with two constructs, namely workload and organizational support. Following these adjustments, the refined and modified measurement models demonstrated a notable improvement, exhibiting satisfactory alignment with the collected dataset. Detailed statistical summaries and model fit indices are provided in Table 3 for comprehensive review and assessment of the refined models.

Measurement model of the latent variables.

In order to establish convergent validity, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was employed, aligning with the methodology outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) . The evaluation, detailed in Table 4 , demonstrates that both the AVE and Construct Reliability (CR) for the constructs surpassed the recommended threshold values of 0.50 and 0.60, respectively. This outcome suggests robust convergent validity. Notably, all indicators within the foundational measurement model exhibited loadings greater than 0.5, serving as compelling evidence affirming the convergent validity of the constructs.

Convergent and discriminant validity.

AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability. The diagonal line values are the square root of AVE. The off-diagonal line values are the correlation coefficients of one factor with another factor. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Furthermore, discriminant validity was rigorously evaluated employing Straub et al.’s (2004) recommended criterion. This involved an examination comparing the square root of AVE with the correlation coefficient between related constructs. The findings, as illustrated in Table 4 , unveiled that the interrelationships among all factors remained notably lower than the square root of the respective AVE values. This outcome validates the discriminant validity, affirming that the constructs are distinct from each other and can be differentiated effectively within the measurement model.

Following the hypothesized relationships among the latent variables, SEM was employed to investigate these associations. The findings unveiled a robust alignment between the anticipated model and the actual dataset, showcasing noteworthy fit indices: χ 2 = 660.120, df = 450, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.981, TLI = 0.972, RMSEA = 0.025 (95% CI [0.020, 0.030]), and SRMR = 0.042.

Illustrating the envisioned connections between the latent constructs, Figure 2 exhibits the path diagram representing these relationships. Notably, all path coefficients emerged as statistically significant, affirming and providing substantial support for the anticipated associations between the variables.

The Mediation Model.

Finally, to ascertain the significance of indirect effects, 5000 resamples bootstrapping analyses were conducted following Hayes’s (2009) method. Table 5 presents a comprehensive overview of the direct, indirect, and total effects observed in the mediation analysis.

The results of mediation analysis.

WE, work engagement. Bootstrap is based on 5000 resamples ( Hayes, 2009 ).

Notably, direct effects of workload, organizational support, and work engagement on wellbeing were statistically significant (workload → wellbeing: β = 0.46, 95% CI [0.41, 0.52], T = 12.60, p < 0.001; organizational support → wellbeing: β = 0.36, 95% CI [0.31, 0.42], T = 9.80, p < 0.001; work engagement → wellbeing: β = 0.48, 95% CI [0.43, 0.54], T = 13.40, p < 0.001).

Additionally, indirect effects were observed, highlighting the mediating role of work engagement in the relationships between workload and wellbeing (workload → work engagement → wellbeing: β = 0.17, 95% CI [0.13, 0.22], T = 6.20, p < 0.001) and between organizational support and wellbeing (organizational support → work engagement → wellbeing: β = 0.19, 95% CI [0.15, 0.24], T = 7.00, p < 0.001).

Furthermore, the combined direct and indirect pathways, termed as total effects, exhibited substantial influence (workload → wellbeing (Total): β = 0.63, 95% CI [0.58, 0.68], T = 18.50, p < 0.001; organizational support → wellbeing (Total): β = 0.55, 95% CI [0.50, 0.60], T = 16.20, p < 0.001).

Overall, the mediation analysis revealed indirect effects, highlighting the mediating role of work engagement in the relationships between workload and psychological wellbeing, as well as between organizational support and psychological wellbeing. This suggests that work engagement plays a crucial intermediary role in influencing the impact of workload and organizational support on teachers’ psychological wellbeing.

This study thoroughly studied the complex interrelationships among teacher workload, organizational support, work engagement, and psychological wellbeing within the setting of Chinese secondary schools. The findings discovered important information on the complex relationships that influence educators’ psychological health, shedding profound light on how work demands and support systems intertwine to impact teachers’ overall wellbeing.

The observed direct correlation between teacher workload and wellbeing resonates deeply with an extensive body of literature underscoring the harmful impacts of heightened work demands on teachers’ mental health ( Hakanen et al., 2006 ; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010 ; Collie et al., 2015 ; Granziera et al., 2021 ; Jerrim and Sims, 2021 ; Magalong and Torreon, 2021 ; Pan et al., 2023 ). The inherent responsibilities entailed in teaching, including multifaceted tasks such as lesson planning, grading, and administrative duties, notably contribute to escalated stress and burnout among educators ( Kyriacou, 2001 ; Granziera et al., 2021 ). These findings align harmoniously with the conservation of resources theory, postulating that excessive demands can deplete an individual’s resources, potentially jeopardizing their overall wellbeing ( Hobfoll, 1989 ). As educators navigate the complexities of their profession, the pressure caused by high workload emerges as a pivotal and influential factor that significantly impacts their psychological health and overall wellbeing ( Jerrim and Sims, 2021 ).

Implementing targeted interventions to address workload concerns, such as optimizing administrative processes or ensuring adequate resource provisions, not only holds the potential to enhance wellbeing but also emerges as a facilitator for boosting job satisfaction and increasing teacher retention rates ( Ingersoll and Strong, 2011 ; Schleicher, 2018 ). This study underscores the high importance of addressing workload as a modifiable factor to enhance teacher wellbeing and consequently, elevate the quality of education ( Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010 ; Collie et al., 2015 ; Magalong and Torreon, 2021 ).

Also, the direct correlation between organizational support and teacher wellbeing harmonizes with a rich body of empirical research emphasizing the profound impact of supportive work environments on teachers’ mental health ( Malik and Noreen, 2015 ; Feni, 2022 ; Sudibjo and Manihuruk, 2022 ; Journell, 2023 ). A conducive work atmosphere, where educators perceive organizational support and recognition for their wellbeing, cultivates a positive environment, leading to increased job satisfaction and reduced burnout ( Eisenberger et al., 2001 ; Malik and Noreen, 2015 ). This congruence aligns inherently with social exchange theory, postulating that perceived organizational support generates increased commitment and wellbeing among employees ( Eisenberger et al., 1986 ). The current study contributes empirical evidence, further bolstering the direct link between organizational support and teacher wellbeing.

Additionally, the identified mediating function of work engagement in the interplay between teacher workload and wellbeing substantiates the JD-R model, emphasizing work engagement as a critical mediator between job demands and wellbeing ( Bakker and Demerouti, 2017 ). High levels of work engagement are posited as invaluable resources that lessen the detrimental effects of workload demands ( Bakker and Demerouti, 2017 ; Montani et al., 2020 ). This finding resonates with existing research in diverse occupational contexts, signifying that nurturing work engagement is pivotal not only for individual wellbeing but also for fostering a thriving and effective workforce ( Schaufeli et al., 2009 ; Sarath and Manikandan, 2014 ; Han et al., 2020 ). In the realm of teaching, characterized by intrinsic workload demands, cultivating work engagement surfaces as a crucial element, indispensable for not only individual teacher wellbeing but also for nurturing a positive and effective teaching workforce ( Schaufeli et al., 2006 ; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ; Rusu and Colomeischi, 2020 ).

Moreover, the study highlights the mediating role of work engagement between organizational support and wellbeing, aligning consistently with the JD-R model. Perceived organizational support profoundly influences educators’ work engagement, fostering a constructive work-related state ( Eisenberger et al., 2001 ; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009 ; Sudibjo and Manihuruk, 2022 ; Journell, 2023 ). Particularly in the context of teachers, organizational support emerges as a pivotal driver in promoting work engagement, serving as a protective mechanism against stress and workload ( Sudibjo and Manihuruk, 2022 ). Educators perceiving heightened levels of organizational support tend to exhibit increased dedication, vigor, and absorption in their professional roles, resulting in heightened engagement ( Schaufeli et al., 2002 ; Malik and Noreen, 2015 ).

The ramifications of these findings hold considerable weight for educational policymakers and administrators striving to elevate teacher wellbeing and consequently, the quality of education. Initiatives aimed at fostering a supportive organizational climate, including the implementation of mentorship programs, offering professional development opportunities, and establishing transparent communication channels, emerge as pivotal strategies in nurturing work engagement among teachers ( Eisenberger et al., 2001 ; Collie et al., 2015 ). These interventions, besides contributing to immediate wellbeing, wield the potential to significantly enhance instructional quality and yield positive outcomes for student education ( Schaufeli et al., 2009 ; Collie et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, recognizing the intricate interdependence between organizational support and work engagement underscores the amplified positive effects of organizational support on teacher wellbeing, creating a reinforcing cycle that mutually benefits educators and educational institutions ( Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ).

This study’s exploration into the multifaceted factors shaping teacher wellbeing within educational settings has unraveled critical insights into the complex interconnections among teacher workload, organizational support, work engagement, and overall teacher wellbeing. The findings underscore robust direct relationships among these elements, offering insights into how workload, organizational support, and work engagement intricately influence and shape teacher wellbeing. The identified direct impact of teacher workload emphasizes the pressing necessity for targeted interventions aimed at reducing the burdens on educators. Policymakers and school administrators can implement focused initiatives, such as streamlining administrative processes and ensuring sufficient resources, which stand as potential contributors to sustaining the wellbeing of the teaching workforce.

Moreover, perceived organizational support serves as a fundamental catalyst in enhancing the wellbeing of secondary school teachers in China. By “catalyst”, we mean that POS acts as a crucial agent that speeds up and strengthens the positive effects of supportive environments on teachers’ wellbeing. It plays a pivotal role in mediating the impact of workload and making the positive effects of supportive environments stronger for teacher wellbeing. In other words, POS plays a pivotal role in mediating the impact of workload and amplifying the positive effects of supportive environments on teacher wellbeing. This study’s identification of POS as a catalyst contributes significantly to understanding how organizational support directly influences teachers’ work engagement and psychological wellbeing. This insight highlights the importance of supportive cultures within educational institutions and provides a framework for future interventions and policies aimed at enhancing teacher wellbeing and, subsequently, educational effectiveness. This identified catalyst role of POS also holds substantial significance for future researchers. Understanding POS as a catalyst offers a framework to explore and design interventions that specifically target organizational support mechanisms within educational settings. Future researchers can utilize this understanding to develop nuanced strategies, interventions, and policies aimed at enhancing teacher wellbeing. By focusing on fostering supportive cultures and improving organizational support, researchers can contribute to refining the educational environment, ultimately benefiting both educators and students. Furthermore, acknowledging POS as a catalyst opens avenues for exploring and evaluating the effectiveness of various interventions, enabling a more tailored approach to improving teacher wellbeing and, consequently, the quality of education.

Furthermore, the highlighted mediating role of work engagement emphasizes the potential for interventions that elevate teacher engagement to act as both a shield against the adverse effects of high workload and an amplifier of the positive impacts of organizational support. Implementation of strategies like professional development programs, mentorship initiatives, and recognition for exemplary work can serve as pivotal mechanisms in enhancing engagement among teachers.

The implications of this study resonate profoundly with educational policymakers, school administrators, and practitioners involved in teacher development. Recognizing the direct impact of teacher workload underscores the urgency for systemic changes aimed at reducing undue burdens on educators. Concurrently, interventions aimed at reinforcing organizational support can significantly mold supportive work environments conducive to teacher wellbeing.

Moreover, these findings go beyond the realm of teacher welfare, extending to broader implications for the quality of education. An engaged teaching workforce is likely to create positive learning environments, ultimately influencing student outcomes and enhancing educational effectiveness. Consequently, investing in teacher wellbeing emerges as an integral component of broader educational enhancement initiatives.

However, acknowledging the study’s contributions, several limitations warrant consideration. The cross-sectional nature of the data hinders definitive establishment of causality. Longitudinal studies could provide a more intricate understanding of the evolving relationships among teacher workload, organizational support, work engagement, and wellbeing over time. Additionally, reliance on self-report measures introduces the potential for common method bias. Future research incorporating objective measures and diverse data sources could fortify the robustness of the findings. Moreover, the study’s generalizability may be influenced by contextual and cultural factors within the educational system, necessitating replication across diverse settings to enhance external validity.

Taken together, while this study lays a solid groundwork for comprehending the intricate dynamics influencing teacher wellbeing, it serves as a catalyst for future research endeavors. By informing and inspiring practical interventions aimed at enhancing teacher wellbeing, this study contributes profoundly to the holistic enhancement of the educational ecosystem.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to YW, [email protected] .

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the School of Public Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

YW: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Alfes K., Shantz A. D., Truss C., Soane E. C. (2013). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated mediation model. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 24 330–351. 10.1080/09585192.2012.679950 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arslan G. (2018). Understanding the association between positive psychological functioning at work and cognitive wellbeing in teachers. J. Positive Psychol. Wellbeing 2 113–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A. B., Albrecht S. L., Leiter M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 20 4–28. 10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A. B., Demerouti E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J. Managerial Psychol. 22 309–328. 10.1108/02683940710733115 31861812 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A. B., Demerouti E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 13 209–223. 10.1108/13620430810870476 36683476 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A. B., Demerouti E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 22 273–285. 10.1037/ocp0000056 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A. B., Demerouti E., Sanz-Vergel A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: the JD–R approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1 389–411. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bardach L., Klassen R. M., Perry N. E. (2022). Teachers’ psychological characteristics: do they matter for teacher effectiveness, teachers’ well-being, retention, and interpersonal relations? an integrative review. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34 259–300. 10.1007/s10648-021-09614-9 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown T. A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burić I., Slišković A., Penezić Z. (2019). Understanding teacher well-being: a cross-lagged analysis of burnout, negative student-related emotions, psychopathological symptoms, and resilience. Educ. Psychol. 39 1136–1155. 10.1080/01443410.2019.1577952 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butt G., Lance A. (2005). Secondary teacher workload and job satisfaction: do successful strategies for change exist? Educ. Manag. Adm. Leaders. 33 401–422. 10.1177/1741143205056304 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calderón-de G., Lozano F., Cantuarias A., Ibarra L. (2018). Validación de la Escala de satisfacción con la Vida en trabajadores peruanos. Liberabit 24 249–264. 10.24265/liberabit.2018.v24n2.06 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiang C. F., Hsieh T. S. (2012). The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 31 180–190. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.04.011 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chitra T., Karunanidhi S. (2021). The impact of resilience training on occupational stress, resilience, job satisfaction, and psychological well-being of female police officers. J. Police Criminal Psychol. 36 8–23. 10.1007/s11896-018-9294-9 27409075 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chughati F. D., Perveen U. (2013). A study of teachers workload and job satisfaction in public and private schools at secondary level in Lahore city Pakistan. Asian J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2 202–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collie R. J., Shapka J. D., Perry N. E., Martin A. J. (2015). Teacher well-being: exploring its components and a practice-oriented scale. J. Psychoeduc. Assessment 33 744–756. 10.1177/0734282915587990 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cullen K. L., Edwards B. D., Casper W. C., Gue K. R. (2014). Employees’ adaptability and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance. J. Bus. Psychol. 29 269–280. 10.1007/s10869-013-9312-y [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dagenais-Desmarais V., Savoie A. (2012). What is psychological well-being, really? a grassroots approach from the organizational sciences. J. Happiness Stud. 13 659–684. 10.1007/s10902-011-9285-3 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darling-Hammond L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: what can we learn from international practice? Eur. J. Teacher Educ. 40 291–309. 10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Can. Psychol. 49 14–23. 10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Derakhshan A., Greenier V., Fathi J. (2023). Exploring the interplay between a loving pedagogy, creativity, and work engagement among EFL/ESL teachers: a multinational study. Curr. Psychol. 42 22803–22822. 10.1007/s12144-022-03371-w [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R., Armeli S., Rexwinkel B., Lynch P. D., Rhoades L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 42–51. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R., Cummings J., Armeli S., Lynch P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 82 812–820. 10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R., Huntington R., Hutchison S., Sowa D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 71 500–507. 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R., Rhoades Shanock L., Wen X. (2020). Perceived organizational support: why caring about employees counts. Ann. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 7 101–124. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044917 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R., Stinglhamber F. (2011). Perceived Organizational Support: Fostering Enthusiastic and Productive Employees. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 10.1037/12318-000 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fathi J., Zhang L. J., Arefian M. H. (2023). Testing a model of EFL teachers’ work engagement: the roles of teachers’ professional identity, L2 grit, and foreign language teaching enjoyment. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguistics Lang. Teach. 10.1515/iral-2023-0024 [Epub ahead of print]. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feni N. K. Y. (2022). The Effect of Perceived Organizational Support and Psychological Capital on the Psychological Well-Being of Teachers. Doctoral dissertation. South Africa: University of the Free State. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fornell C., Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 39–50. 10.1177/002224378101800104 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fotiadis A., Abdulrahman K., Spyridou A. (2019). The mediating roles of psychological autonomy, competence and relatedness on work-life balance and well-being. Front. Psychol. 10:1267. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01267 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granziera H., Collie R., Martin A. (2021). “Understanding teacher wellbeing through job demands-resources theory,” in Cultivating Teacher Resilience: InternationalApproaches, Applications and Impact , ed. Mansfield C. F. (Berlin: Springer; ), 229–244. 10.1007/978-981-15-5963-1_14 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenier V., Derakhshan A., Fathi J. (2021). Emotion regulation and psychological well-being in teacher work engagement: a case of British and Iranian English language teachers. System 97:102446. 10.1016/j.system.2020.102446 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hakanen J. J., Bakker A. B., Schaufeli W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. J. School Psychol. 43 495–513. 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Han J., Yin H., Wang J., Bai Y. (2020). Challenge job demands and job resources to university teacher well-being: the mediation of teacher efficacy. Stud. Higher Educ. 45 1771–1785. 10.1080/03075079.2019.1594180 34051913 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanushek E. A., Piopiunik M., Wiederhold S. (2019). The value of smarter teachers: international evidence on teacher cognitive skills and student performance. J. Hum. Resour. 54 857–899. 10.3368/jhr.54.4.0317.8619R1 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harter J. K., Schmidt F. L., Hayes T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 268–279. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun. Monogr. 76 408–420. 10.1080/03637750903310360 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hobfoll S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 44 513–524. 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu L. T., Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidisc. J. 6 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 36787513 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ingersoll R. M., Strong M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: a critical review of the research. Rev. Educ. Res. 81 201–233. 10.3102/0034654311403323 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jerrim J., Sims S. (2021). When is high workload bad for teacher wellbeing? accounting for the non-linear contribution of specific teaching tasks. Teach. Teacher Educ. 105:103395. 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103395 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson S., Cooper C., Cartwright S., Donald I., Taylor P., Millet C. (2005). The experience of work-related stress across occupations. J. Managerial Psychol. 20 178–187. 10.1108/02683940510579803 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Journell L. (2023). The Relationships Among Organizational Support, Teacher Well-being, and Teacher Resilience in Secondary School Teachers. Doctoral dissertation. Dayton: Wright State University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge T. A., Thoresen C. J., Bono J. E., Patton G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol. Bull. 127 376–407. 10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keyes C. (2002). The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. J. Health Soc. Behav. 43 207–222. 10.2307/3090197 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knight C., Patterson M., Dawson J. (2017). Building work engagement: a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. J. Organ. Behav. 38 792–812. 10.1002/job.2167 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koroglu Ş, Ozmen O. (2022). The mediating effect of work engagement on innovative work behavior and the role of psychological well-being in the job demands–resources (JD-R) model. Asia Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 14 124–144. 10.1108/APJBA-09-2020-0326 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurtessis J. N., Eisenberger R., Ford M. T., Buffardi L. C., Stewart K. A., Adis C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. J. Manag. 43 1854–1884. 10.1177/0149206315575554 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kyriacou C. (2001). Teacher stress: directions for future research. Educ. Rev. 53 27–35. 10.1080/00131910120033628 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lauermann F., Karabenick S. A. (2011). Taking teacher responsibility into account (ability): explicating its multiple components and theoretical status. Educ. Psychol. 46 122–140. 10.1080/00461520.2011.558818 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesener T., Gusy B., Jochmann A., Wolter C. (2020). The drivers of work engagement: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal evidence. Work Stress 34 259–278. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li F., Mohammaddokht F., Hosseini H. M., Fathi J. (2023). Reflective teaching and academic optimism as correlates of work engagement among university instructors. Heliyon 9:e13735. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13735 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ling W., Yang H., Fang L. (2006). Perceived organizational support (POS) of the employees. Acta Psychol. Sinica 38 281–287. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu L., Fathi J., Allahveysi S. P., Kamran K. (2023). A model of teachers’ growth mindset, teaching enjoyment, work engagement, and teacher grit among EFL teachers. Front. Psychol. 14:1137357. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1137357 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magalong A. A., Torreon L. C. (2021). Teaching workload management: its impact on teachers’ well-being and effectiveness. Am. J. Multidiscip. Res. Dev. 3 31–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malik S., Noreen S. (2015). Perceived organizational support as a moderator of affective well-being and occupational stress. Pakistan J. Commerce Soc. Sci. 9 865–874. 35533110 [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslach C., Schaufeli W. B., Leiter M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 52 397–422. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McInerney D. M., Ganotice F. A., King R. B., Morin A. J., Marsh H. W. (2015). Teachers’ commitment and psychological well-being: implications of self-beliefs for teaching in Hong Kong. Educ. Psychol. 35 926–945. 10.1080/01443410.2014.895801 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molero Jurado M. D. M., Pérez-Fuentes M. D. C., Gázquez Linares J. J., Barragán Martín A. B. (2018). Burnout in health professionals according to their self-esteem, social support and empathy profile. Front. Psychol. 9:424. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00424 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Montani F., Vandenberghe C., Khedhaouria A., Courcy F. (2020). Examining the inverted U-shaped relationship between workload and innovative work behavior: the role of work engagement and mindfulness. Hum. Relat. 73 59–93. 10.1177/0018726718819055 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin A. J., Boudrias J. S., Marsh H. W., McInerney D. M., Dagenais-Desmarais V., Madore I., et al. (2017). Complementary variable-and person-centered approaches to the dimensionality of psychometric constructs: application to psychological wellbeing at work. J. Bus. Psychol. 32 395–419. 10.1007/s10869-016-9448-7 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Obrenovic B., Jianguo D., Khudaykulov A., Khan M. A. S. (2020). Work-family conflict impact on psychological safety and psychological well-being: a job performance model. Front. Psychol. 11:475. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00475 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Opfer V. D., Pedder D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 81 376–407. 10.3102/0034654311413609 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pan H. L. W., Chung C. H., Lin Y. C. (2023). Exploring the predictors of teacher well-being: an analysis of teacher training preparedness, autonomy, and workload. Sustainability 15:5804. 10.3390/su15075804 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez-Fuentes M. D. C., Molero Jurado M. D. M., Barragán Martín A. B., Simón Márquez M. D. M., Martos Martínez Á, Gázquez Linares J. J. (2018). The mediating role of perceived stress in the relationship of self-efficacy and work engagement in nurses. J. Clin. Med. 8:10. 10.3390/jcm8010010 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prasad D. K., Mangipudi D. M. R., Vaidya D. R., Muralidhar B. (2020a). Organizational climate, opportunities, challenges and psychological wellbeing of the remote working employees during COVID-19 pandemic: a general linear model approach with reference to information technology industry in Hyderabad. Int. J. Adv. Res. Eng. Technol. 11 372–389. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prasad K. D. V., Vaidya R. W., Mangipudi M. R. (2020b). Effect of occupational stress and remote working on psychological well-being of employees: an empirical analysis during covid-19 pandemic concerning information technology industry in hyderabad. Indian J. Commerce Manag. Stud. 11 1–13. 10.18843/ijcms/v11i2/01 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quinn D. M., Earnshaw V. A. (2013). Concealable stigmatized identities and psychological well-being. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 7 40–51. 10.1111/spc3.12005 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Renshaw T. L., Long A. C., Cook C. R. (2015). Assessing adolescents’ positive psychological functioning at school: development and validation of the student subjective wellbeing questionnaire. School Psychol. Q. 30 534–552. 10.1037/spq0000088 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhoades L., Eisenberger R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 698–714. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Runhaar P., Konermann J., Sanders K. (2013). Teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour: considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader–member exchange. Teach. Teach. Educ. 30 99–108. 10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.008 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusu P. P., Colomeischi A. A. (2020). Positivity ratio and well-being among teachers. the mediating role of work engagement. Front. Psychol. 11:1608. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01608 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 52 141–166. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryff C. D., Keyes C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69 719–727. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarath P., Manikandan K. (2014). Work engagement and work related wellbeing of school teachers. SELP J. Soc. Sci. 5 93–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W. B., Bakker A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 25 293–315. 10.1002/job.248 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W. B., Bakker A. B., Salanova M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 66 701–716. 10.1177/0013164405282471 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W. B., Bakker A. B., Van Rhenen W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J. Organ. Behav. 30 893–917. 10.1002/job.595 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W. B., Salanova M., González-Romá V., Bakker A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3 71–92. 10.1023/A:1015630930326 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schleicher A. (2018). Educating learners for their future, not our past. ECNU Rev. Educ. 1, 58–75. 10.30926/ecnuroe2018010104 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skaalvik E. M., Skaalvik S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: a study of relations. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26 1059–1069. 10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skaalvik E. M., Skaalvik S. (2017). Motivated for teaching? associations with school goal structure, teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Teach. Teach. Educ. 67 152–160. 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith M., Bourke S. (1992). Teacher stress: examining a model based on context, workload, and satisfaction. Teach. Teach. Educ. 8 31–46. 10.1016/0742-051X(92)90038-5 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Straub D., Boudreau M.-C., Gefen D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13:63. 10.17705/1CAIS.01324 33241613 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sudibjo N., Manihuruk A. M. (2022). How do happiness at work and perceived organizational support affect teachers’ mental health through job satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic? Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 15 939–951. 10.2147/PRBM.S361881 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Warr P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. J. Occup. Psychol. 63 193–210. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00521.x [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright T. A., Cropanzano R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5:84. 10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.84 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xanthopoulou D., Bakker A. B., Demerouti E., Schaufeli W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. J. Vocat. Behav. 74 235–244. 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeng G., Chen X., Cheung H. Y., Peng K. (2019). Teachers’ growth mindset and work engagement in the Chinese educational context: well-being and perseverance of effort as mediators. Front. Psychol. 10:839. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00839 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang L. J., Fathi J., Mohammaddokht F. (2023a). Predicting teaching enjoyment from teachers’ perceived school climate, self-efficacy, and psychological wellbeing at work: EFL teachers. Perceptual Motor Skills 130 2269–2299. 10.1177/00315125231182269 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang L. J., Fathi J., Naderi M. (2023b). A cross-lagged panel analysis of self-efficacy, teacher grit, teaching enjoyment, and work engagement among foreign language teachers. J. Multilingual Multicultural Dev. [Online ahead of print]. 10.1080/01434632.2023.2248064 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

• View on publisher site
• PDF (934.4 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Reducing Teacher Workloads

CHALLENGE: Teachers have too much on their plates.

Eschew infinity and beyond, working smarter, not harder, step away from the buffet.

Premium Resource

• Considering how little time we have with students, it is  remarkable  how much we impact their lives and learning each year.
• When we accept our limitations of time, we grant ourselves permission to do a few things well, rather than all the things poorly.

By replacing the idea that we contain 'infinite potential' with the reality that our time and energy are finite, we can create healthier workloads and ultimately more successful schools.

• Grading/feedback (3–5 hours).
• Planning/prepping lessons (5–6 hours).
• PD and meeting with colleagues (2–3 hours).
• Administrative, school committees, and extra duty tasks (5–6 hours).
• Implementing more efficient and less time-consuming feedback practices.
• Reducing the frequency of data collection and data meetings.
• Simplifying lesson planning processes and requirements.

It’s not a question of whether we can reduce workloads for the sake of teacher well-being—it’s a question of whether we will reduce workloads for the sake of student learning.

Agreement #1: we will elicit feedback and ensure follow-through, agreement #2: we will reduce initiative fatigue.

• It increases exhaustion as staff juggle dozens of different asks and changes.
• It creates cynicism as individuals lose faith and trust that an initiative will actually be supported with time and integrity.
• It causes inefficacy as teachers face new learning curves, often without the coaching and support necessary to develop skills before the next new initiative comes their way.
• What is one initiative that, if it were off your plate, would help you do your job better?
• What elements of [the proposed initiative] should we keep that allow us to [goal of the initiative]?
• Are there elements of [the proposed initiative] that we should scrap while still being able to achieve [goal of the initiative]?
• Are there things we're doing now that already contribute to [goal of the initiative]?

Agreement #3: We Will Work Smarter, Not Harder

• Implementing single-point rubrics and pre-conferencing with students in class rather than spending my nights writing detailed feedback on big projects and essays.
• Creating a bank of email templates that I can copy and paste for common emails (parent communication, student feedback).
• Including commonly requested links or information in my email footer/signature.
• Maintaining a Google Doc of activities and prompts that I can easily pull for warm-ups and exit tickets.
• Nail List: What few things do I want to dedicate the majority of my energy toward? What systems, support, and boundaries will I create and communicate to nail these things?
• Prevail List: Where do I give myself permission to maintain the status quo? How will I avoid the temptation to try to do all the things that demand my attention?
• Fail List: What things do I accept I won't be able to accomplish right now, or this month, or this year? How will I accept the limitations of my time and forgive myself accordingly?

Schools can’t do it all—but we can make a positive impact when we teach, lead, and live within our boundaries.

Reflect & discuss.

➛ How can principals better elicit and respond to feedback from overloaded teachers?

➛ What's the first step your school would need to take to commit to the three "Agreements for Radical Acceptance of Finitude" described here?

➛ What is one daily practice you could undertake to become more efficient within your existing workload?

Illuminate the Way

A guide for school leaders to address and prevent teacher burnout.

Simplifying Schools

What if school staffs intentionally sought to reduce their workloads that’s the question explored in “subtraction in action,” a series of episodes from mit’s teachlab podcast, which explores innovative teaching practices, research, and insights from leading educators and experts in the field. “people are too worn down and too busy already to add new things,” says host justin reich, an mit-based education researcher and regular contributor to el. “another approach is to start with subtraction: how can we make schools simpler” one way, says brown university professor matt kraft, is to maximize instructional time by minimizing interruptions. in an interview with reich, kraft draws on .css-15x2sbf{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-decoration-color:rgba(0, 94, 71, 0.4);font-weight:700;}.css-15x2sbf:hover{text-decoration-color:inherit;} .css-1l97iij{margin:0;font:inherit;color:#005e47;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-decoration-color:rgba(0, 94, 71, 0.4);font-weight:700;}.css-1l97iij:hover{text-decoration-color:inherit;} a 2022 study he conducted with a colleague, noting that even secondslong interruptions—like an intercom announcement— create a “spillover effect” that disrupts the flow of learning and “requires a lot of extra work to get people back to where they were.” in a case study of providence public school district in rhode island, kraft found that the “spillover” from seemingly minor interruptions added up to a staggering loss of “20 days of potential instructional time” per year at some schools in the district. what can school leaders do to cut down on interruptions strategically subtract. “schools and principals have agency over this,” says kraft. administrators’ logistical decisions, like creating “a one-time blast to teachers in the morning with everything wrapped up via a text or via a single announcement,” can play a significant role in supporting “a norm or commitment or a culture to hold instructional time sacred.” when it comes to reducing what’s on teachers’ plates, small subtractions add up. “each little subtraction,” says reich, “can make people feel a little lighter and breathe a little easier. and then we can figure out what schools are missing and what to strategically add to make them stronger.” listen to all episodes of the “subtraction in action” series at: www.teachlabpodcast.com . —jessica comola.

Arens, A. K., &, Morin, A. J. S. (2016). Relations between teachers' emotional exhaustion and students' educational outcomes.  Journal of Educational Psychology , 108(6), 800–813.

Churches, R. (2020, March).  Supporting teachers through the school workload reduction toolkit.  Education Development Trust.

Eddy, C. L., Huang, F. L., Cohen, D. R., Baker, K. M., Edwards, K. C., Herman, K. C., et al. (2020). Does teacher emotional exhaustion and efficacy predict student discipline sanctions?  School Psychology Review , 49(3), 239–255.

Kurtz, H. (2022, June 9). A profession in crisis: Findings from a national teacher survey. EdWeek Research Center.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2000, January 21).  The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it  (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Moss, J. (2021, September 28). The burnout epidemic: The rise of chronic stress and how we can fix it.  Harvard Business Review .

Schmoker, M. (2016).  Leading with focus: Elevating the essentials for school and district improvement.  ASCD.

Chase Mielke is a veteran teacher and instructional coach, a nationally recognized speaker, and the author of ASCD's Illuminate the Way: The School Leader's Guide to Addressing and Preventing Teacher Burnout, The Burnout Cure: Learning to Love Teaching Again, and Overcoming Educator Burnout (Quick Reference Guide) . A Michigan Teacher of the Year nominee and expert on teacher well-being, Chase delivers highly engaging, research-based, and practical keynotes and professional development workshops to schools and organizations across the world.

His work has been featured on CNN, Greater Good Magazine , and Edutopia . He hosts the Educator Happy Hour podcast and writes the "Burnout Rx" column for EL Magazine. Chase resides with his family in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where he daydreams about fresh Expo markers and tries to keep his wild toddler from eating dog food and rocks.

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action., related articles.

The Power of a Growth Focus

School Leaders, Don’t Leave New Teachers “Uncoached”

The Principal as Mentor and Coach

Reframing New Teachers’ Common Misconceptions

The Curse of Certainty

From our issue.