What We Do
For Teachers     

National Advisory Board      

State Teacher
Association Partners       

Survey on Rules, Regulations and Mandates
Shows Teachers are at the Breaking Point

The survey entitled Teacher Choice provided teachers with the opportunity to respond both to close-ended questions as well as to a series of open-ended questions attempting to elicit further details. There were three strands of questions:

First, a determination of how much classroom instructional time is diverted from teaching to administrative tasks, second, the relative ease with which changes may be introduced in the curriculum, and third, a specific look at two federal programs (Title I and Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, or IDEA) that have an impact directly on classroom teaching.

"Pushing Papers, Not Grading Papers"
In a series of questions, slightly more than 68 percent of teachers responded that they devoted more than 70 percent of their day to the direct instruction of students, with 44 percent devoting more than 80 percent of their day to direct instruction.

Six percent of teachers note that they devote less than half of their school day to direct instruction of students. Nearly all of these were specialist teachers, such as Gifted and Talented, Alternative Education and, most particularly, Special Education teachers. These specialized teaching areas, particularly special education with its need for Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) often have increased paperwork burdens imposed upon them. The highest in administrative (noninstructional) tasks were:

Responding to directives and memos from central administration or school administration (cited by 70 percent of teachers)
Increased paperwork to justify student discipline (75 percent) and discipline itself (65 percent)
Parent conferencing (74 percent)
Tabulations of student activity (76 percent)
Development of Individual Education Plans (IEP) for Special Education students (62 percent)
Teachers noted their belief that the worst regulations and rules emanated from the school district (37 percent) or within the school itself (22 percent). This result echoes a 1991 Indiana University study in which teachers perceived nearly all of the worst regulatory issues as being driven by state—or school-level policies.

But while many of the increased burdens may appear to be initiated by local forces, forces beyond the local jurisdiction drive many of these paperwork and rule burdens. Increased paperwork for student discipline is often required by school districts to protect the district and the teacher in the event of increasingly common lawsuits. Tabulations of student activity are often required by federal or state regulations to justify monies flowing down to the district.

As one teacher described her situation, "I now spend more time pushing papers, rather than grading papers, and that is not why I wanted to be a teacher."

IDEA and Title I

It is difficult for teachers "on the front lines" of education to comprehend the extent to which increased administrative burdens on them are part of a "trickle down" process started in Washington.

Yet, when given the opportunity to respond to the open-ended question "What policies or practices inhibit or keep you from providing effective classroom instruction?" most respondents point to issues surrounding the development of IEPs and Special Education, and discipline issues that are often exacerbated by provisions of the IDEA.

The two federal regulations most likely to impact directly on the classroom are Title I (formerly Chapter I) regulations and the IDEA. Few teachers have identified Title I as a burden on their time. Indeed, the ability of teachers to obtain additional assistance through Title I funds (even though such assistance often comes in the form of untrained aides) may—for teachers—balance off the additional meetings and record-keeping requirements to secure such federal funding.

Teachers are evenly split in viewing the effects of Title I rules and regulations on good class instruction, with 48 percent believing such rules aid instruction, and 50 percent believing they inhibit good instruction. Realistically, one might ask why a program costing the taxpayers nearly $8 billion a year should have such a mixed review from those on the front lines of instruction.

But teachers across-the-board have correctly identified the IDEA as a major consumer of time away from instruction. Indeed, more than 30 percent of these open-ended and unprompted responses included such typical complaints as—

"Due process 'rights' of Special Ed students; the parent is able to determine placement even at a cost of safety for others."

"The large number of 504 and Special Ed Students placed in mainstream class (approximately 20 percent)."

"Increase in paperwork for IEPs and reports about students with IEPs."

"Not being able to suspend Special Ed students." "Placing behavioral problems into Special Ed, thus giving them rights to misbehave without adequate discipline."

"District fear of over-zealous parents and Special Ed parents with lawyers."

Further, most teachers have significant questions about the impact of the "mainstreaming" provision of special education students. Mainstreaming requires special education students to be placed in the "least restrictive environment," which is often interpreted by local jurisdictions to mean placement of autism students into a general education classroom.

While teachers are split in their perceptions about the impact of mainstreaming on Special Education children (45 percent believe it is helpful, 47 percent believe it is harmful), they overwhelmingly believe (by a 63 percent to 26 percent margin) mainstreaming is harmful to General Education students. Despite these ongoing concerns from rank and file teachers, policy-makers in Washington continued to press forward by making it difficult to discipline Special Education students, and by requiring expanded participation in IEP sessions (thereby mainstreaming of Special Education students throughout the country).

Observations:

While the Teacher Choice survey is unscientific, experience and anecdotal conversations with a wide range of teaching professionals suggest a clear and growing cynicism and frustration about the effect of rules, regulations, mandates, and paperwork on the classroom teacher. A number of observations may be made from this survey—

Increasing levels of classroom instruction time is being diverted to administrative tasks, most consisting of responding or complying with an increased level of directives and memoranda from central or school administrators.
Teachers perceive that the greatest single inhibitor to effective classroom practice is an increased need to deal with disciplinary problems and paperwork/meetings driven by the requirements of the IDEA.
Finally, teachers perceive that curriculum and teaching practices are driven from the top down and that, despite the existence of a waiver process, it is extraordinarily difficult to execute such a waiver. Roadblocks to change exist at the district and state levels. Despite this, nearly all teachers have either tried, or know a colleague who has tried, to introduce changes in the curriculum.
Regardless of whether they are traditionalists or progressives in their view of curriculum, teachers are crying out for authority and flexibility in order to address the individualized needs of their students. But as increased paperwork and regulatory burdens fall on teachers, teachers are likely to have less flexibility in teaching and less opportunity to exhibit the professionalism they hold so dear. George W. Bush is calling for more accountability while at the same time promising more flexibility in federally funded programs. Teachers everywhere hope that becomes reality.

For a complete copy of the survey referenced above contact: Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, 1611 N. Kent Street, Suite 901, Arlington, VA 22209. Phone: 703-351-4969; web-site: www.adti.net.