Article

Journal of Industrial Relations

2019, Vol. 61(5) 613–636
Intensification of ! Australian Labour and
Employment Relations Association

teachers’ work under (ALERA) 2018

SAGE Publications Ltd,

devolution: A ‘tsunami’ Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,

Singapore and Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0022185618801396
of paperwork journals.sagepub.com/home/jir

Scott Fitzgerald
Curtin University, Australia

Susan McGrath-Champ, Meghan Stacey,

Rachel Wilson and Mihajla Gavin
University of Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Australian public school teachers work some of the longest weekly hours among
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, particularly
in the state of New South Wales where average hours are officially in, or near, the
statistical category of ‘very long working hours’. These reports of a high workload
have occurred alongside recent policy moves that seek to devolve responsibility for
schooling, augmenting teacher and school-level accountability. This article explores
changes in work demands experienced by New South Wales teachers. As part of a
larger project on schools as workplaces, we examine teaching professionals’ views
through interviews with teacher union representatives. Consistent with a model of
work intensification, workload increases were almost universally reported, primarily
in relation to ‘paperwork’ requirements. However, differences in the nature of
intensification were evident when data were disaggregated according to socio-
educational advantage, level of schooling (primary or secondary) and location.
The distinct patterns of work intensification that emerge reflect each school’s relative
advantage or disadvantage within the school marketplace, influenced by broader
neoliberal reforms occurring within the state and nation.

Keywords
Devolution, labour process, New South Wales, paperwork, teachers, teaching, work,
work intensification, workload

Corresponding author:
Susan McGrath-Champ, Business School, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Email: susan.mcgrathchamp@sydney.edu.au
614 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

Introduction
International comparative research indicates that Australian public school teachers
work some of the longest weekly hours among Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) countries (Freeman et al., 2014: 122), and
that teachers in New South Wales (NSW) work some of the longest hours among
teachers in this country (McKenzie et al., 2014). An average of 50.2 hours of work
per week for primary school teachers and 49.4 hours per week for secondary school
teachers in 2013 places NSW teachers in or near the category of ‘very long working
hours’ as per the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ definition of at least 50 hours of
work per week (Williamson and Gardner, 2015). Moreover, the number of hours
that teachers work in NSW and nationally has gone up over the last decade. Data
from three ‘Staff in Australia’s Schools’ surveys commissioned by the Australian
Federal Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, in 2006–
2007, 2010 and 2013, show that the average total hours worked increased slightly for
both primary and secondary teachers (McKenzie et al., 2014). This increase has
coincided with new policies that increase accountability and devolve responsibility
for student outcomes and school performance, which have led to a perception
among teachers of an accelerated working life (Thompson and Cook, 2017).
As Findlay and Thompson (2017) note, work intensification – working longer
and working harder – is one of the key elements of the contemporary nature of
‘demanding work’ that characterises numerous sectors and industries, including
education. Peetz and Murray (2011: 14) observe that the issues of long working
hours, work–life balance and work intensity have entered into the general public
debate in Australia. Yet studies have found that public sector professionals, such
as teachers, report higher levels of stress and work–life imbalance than private
sector workers; furthermore, union members have reported a greater perception
of work intensity, work–life imbalance and job stress (Johnson et al., 2005; Le
Fevre et al., 2015). This article sets out to explore how public sector school
teachers who are members of the New South Wales Teachers’ Federation
(NSWTF or ‘Federation’) describe their own and their colleagues’ conditions
of work and employment conditions, how these have changed and whether
they consider these changes as being related to policy change. The article is
structured into six main sections: the first outlines education policy in NSW in
the context of wider changes in the Australian education system and provides an
overview of the NSTWF; the second section presents key literature regarding
work intensification, both in general and specifically related to teachers’ work
and its analysis through labour process theory (LPT); and the third discusses the
research method and analytical processes. The fourth section presents the findings
of the research, first an aggregated and then a disaggregated level, to highlight
commonalities and differences associated with the geographical, primary or
secondary, and socio-educational contexts of teachers’ work, leading to fuller
discussion in the fifth section. The article is concluded in the sixth and final
section, which summarises the broader implications of these findings for policy
and suggests directions for further research.
Fitzgerald et al. 615

Background: NSW education policy and teacher unions

The nature of teachers’ work and working conditions has been affected by changes
in education policy (Fitzgerald and Knipe, 2016; Fitzgerald et al., 2018; McGrath-
Champ et al., 2019). The Australian policy context in education, as well as that of
NSW, now reflects the governance reforms that have become commonplace among
western nations (Ball, 2008; Connell, 2013; McKenzie et al., 2015; Niesche and
Thomson, 2017). This reform agenda has worked variously and incrementally to
shift political and social focus towards the level of the local school and its staff,
across both ‘public’ and ‘private’ contexts (Stacey, 2018). This drive towards the
local is manifested through devolution of responsibility for schooling, and it
works in tandem with other governance technologies – test-based accountability
policies, standardisation of teaching and learning, and corporate management
models – which are working to turn the field of education into a market
(Lingard et al., 2013).
In the state of NSW, reform in recent years has brought a renewed focus to
devolution and marketisation policy previously associated with, for instance, the
de-zoning reforms of the late 1980s (Considine, 2012; Sherington and Hughes,
2012). Current reforms such as Local Schools Local Decisions (LSLD) (Gavin
and McGrath-Champ, 2016) have sought to devolve authority to school principals,
while a focus on teacher quality has been evident in policies such as Great
Teaching, Inspired Learning (Stacey, 2017). Documents such as these have
worked in tandem – and at times in tension – with federal intrusions into education
as evident in the Rudd/Gillard Labor government’s ‘Education Revolution’, which
sought to encourage competition between schools through the publishing of liter-
acy and numeracy results on the My School website (www.myschool.edu.au), and
which was associated with a shift from a focus on quality teaching to more prob-
lematic questions of teacher quality (Mockler, 2013).
The five key features of the NSW LSLD policy, as identified by the NSW
Department of Education (DoE), display aspects of New Public Management
common to other recent devolutionary policies such as Western Australia’s 2009
Independent Public Schools (IPS) initiative (Fitzgerald and Rainnie, 2012). Under
broad strategies entitled ‘Staff in our schools’, ‘Managing resources’, ‘Working
locally’, ‘Reducing red tape’ and ‘Making decisions’, the LSLD initiative
sought to ensure school leaders (principals) had management credentials, had
responsibility for managing the majority of the school education budget, had
greater performance management requirements, and were provided with online
tools to better manage their increased authority over staffing and finances (NSW
Department of Education and Communities (DEC), 2014, 2017). Managerial lead-
ership, as opposed to instructional leadership, was to the fore with important
implications for teachers’ conditions of work and employment conditions (Gavin
and McGrath-Champ, 2016; McGrath-Champ et al., 2019).
This assemblage of different policies and practices aligns with broader processes
of neoliberalisation, understood, paradoxically, as governmental intervention to
support the values of the individual, choice and competition under the sign of
616 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

the ‘free market’ (Connell, 2013; Wilkins, 2018). However, although a broad neo-
liberal narrative is visible across these state-based public education systems,
moments of local variation and nuance in policy decisions are evident: the elements
and pace of change towards school devolution and marketisation vary notably
between NSW, which has one of the most centralised Australian school
systems, and other Australian states. As compared to Western Australia’s IPS
programme, the LSLD programme represents a more moderate devolutionary
state policy. While the IPS system devolves staffing processes to local choice in
all instances (i.e. apart from a recently instigated requirement for IP schools to at
least consider redeployees of the centralised system; Fitzgerald et al., 2018), the
NSW system only allows local choice for every second appointment, and this is
after incentive transfers and Aboriginal employment applicants have been placed
(NSW DEC, 2014). NSW has also refused the employment of Teach for Australia
associates in its schools (Knott, 2016), another instance wherein it has maintained a
more centralised approach to the governance of its system than that evident, for
example, in Western Australia.
Part of this policy differentiation undoubtedly arises from the relative industrial
strength, advocacy and public policy influence of the NSWTF, which has cam-
paigned against the forms of school autonomy or school-based management now
being advocated by state and federal politicians. As the LSLD programme was
introduced, the President of the NSWTF observed inherent contradiction that
belies overt political claims:

Many of the same politicians who are so reticent to increase funding to public schools are
keen to market ‘principal’ autonomy. Do we really believe that the same politicians who
aggressively talk about ‘accountability’ and push centralised command-and-control sys-
tems such as testing and national curriculum suddenly want to ‘empower’ teachers?
(Caro, 2012).

The NSWTF considers itself both an industrial and a professional union concerned
with advancing the industrial interests and working conditions of its members
under the ‘umbrella campaign’ of defending and promoting public education and
supporting the welfare and educational outcomes of students (Fitzgerald, 2011a;
O’Brien, 1987; Zadkovich, 1999). In a discussion of education policy
contexts, Sherington and Hughes (2012) have noted how active the NSWTF has
been, historically, in maintaining and defending teachers’ conditions: ‘For a
century, the Labor movement in NSW supported, consolidated and developed
the public education system’ (p. 138). Meanwhile, Louise Fitzgerald (2011b: 124)
contends that the NSWTF is ‘arguably the most militant component’ of public
education teacher unions in Australia.
Following this tradition, the NSWTF has once more campaigned about the
effects of recent policy changes on the work hours and work effort required from
teachers. Its influence has been enhanced by a number of contextual matters.
As Stacey (2017) notes, at the time of the introduction of the LSLD initiative,
Fitzgerald et al. 617

the NSW Minister for Education, Adrian Piccoli, was seen as unusually consulta-
tive and for a number of years helped to restrain the extent of the neoliberal
incursion outlined by federal (and other state) policy settings. As a National
Party member, this may have reflected his concerns about the effects of educational
policy changes on his disadvantaged country electorate. Moreover, the strong per-
formance of the comparatively more centralised NSW public education system
opened space for a more discriminating approach to education policy ‘reform’:
according to Jensen (2013), at the time that the LSLD pilot programme was
being introduced, NSW had achieved National Assessment Program – Literacy
and Numeracy (NAPLAN) and Programme for International Student
Assessment literacy and numeracy outcomes equivalent to, or higher than,
Victoria, which implemented school autonomy policies from the early 1990s.
NSW and Victoria ranked at the top of the achievement domains assessed across
Australian states.
Although LSLD may represent a more moderate devolutionary state policy, the
Federation continues to challenge the effects of its underlying tenets:

The list of tasks imposed on schools by the Department continues to grow. Neoliberal
policies such as Local Schools, Local Decisions have contributed to work intensification,
longer working hours and decreased job security. Devolution of responsibility to indi-
vidual workplaces without sufficient resources creates increased pressure on all teachers,
executives and, especially, teaching principals in terms of the way work is organised and
carried out. (NSWTF, 2016)

The NSWTF has cited the results of the NSW Public Service Commission’s ‘People
Matter’ survey from 2016 to argue that an unacceptable level of work-related stress
is experienced by most teachers. Only 39% of teachers completing that survey
thought their workload was acceptable and only 46% reported that they were
able to keep their stress at an acceptable level; moreover, only 29% believed that
action would be taken by their organisation (the DoE) on the results of the survey
(Lemaire, 2016). While the NSWTF as an organisation has challenged changes in
teachers’ conditions of work and employment, our research sought to gain insights
into its members’ specific experiences of work intensification and its consequences,
such as stress.

Work intensification and the teaching labour process

Although some articles in this journal have addressed union responses to work
intensification (e.g. Lambert et al., 2005), the topic has not figured prominently in
Australian industrial relations research (see Burgess and Connell, 2005; Watson
et al., 2003). More specifically, the industrial relations field has given comparatively
little academic attention to the employment conditions and working conditions of
teachers. The few exceptions to this lack of attention include Burchielli (2006) and
Burchielli et al. (2005), who produced research on Australian teachers’ work
618 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

conditions, and Considine (2012), who looked at work intensification among NSW
teachers and principals in the context of marketisation. Both Considine’s (2012)
and Burchielli’s (2006) research draw on LPT, which views work intensification and
chronic work overload as integral to the exploitation and subordination of labour.
Burchielli (2006: 149) argued that

[t]he reported negative effects of work intensification illustrate its relationship to the
degradation of work, in line with labour process theory, from which the concept of
intensification originates (Braverman, 1974), and which contextualises intensification
within the continuous, historical process of [social] reproduction. . ., albeit in new forms.

In Australia, Connell (1985) and Smyth (2001) have also used LPT in their analyses
of teachers’ work.
Internationally, within the field of education research, the notion of work
intensification has been marked by the influential work of Apple (1986), whose
‘intensification thesis’ drew on critical labour theories to highlight the growing
external pressure on teachers to undertake a greater number and diversity of
tasks without sufficient time and resources. Apple saw the intrusion of external
pressures on teaching as leading to a separation of the conception of teaching
processes and foci and the execution in the classroom. In the ensuing debates
about this process, the concepts of intensification were often linked with de-
professionalisation and deskilling. Carter (1997) notes, however, that the way
these concepts have commonly been used has displayed two basic errors. The
first flaw was to adopt and adapt a far too literal version of Braverman’s deskilling
hypothesis and then apply it to teachers (Ozga and Lawn, 1988), a position that
assumed teachers would face uncomplicated processes of deskilling and increased
direct control. The second, related flaw was to view the growth of new layers of
management within schools and the emergence of new mechanisms of control,
particularly associated with neoliberal reform of schools, as being antithetical to
teachers’ retainment of forms of autonomy, discretion and skill (Carter and
Stevenson, 2012: 483; Reid, 2003). As Gewirtz (1997: 223–224) notes,

The labour process of teaching has always been intense. . .what is different in this age of
market forces and managerialism is the pattern and texture of intensification – the nature
of the tasks that are absorbing increased quantities of teacher time and emotional labour.

A consequence of neoliberal approaches to educational reform has been the

increased workload outcomes of increased ‘accountability’ and teacher ‘responsi-
bility’ (Brennan, 2009; Dinham, 2013). Williamson and Myhill (2008: 25) argue
that these include ‘considerably longer working hours than in the past, an ever-
expanding teaching role, and most noticeably, a significant increase in nonteaching
and largely administrative duties’.
Indeed, such changes are associated with new, contested and mediated forms of
professional identity for teachers and principals. Authors such as Hargreaves
Fitzgerald et al. 619

(1994) and Gewirtz (1996) reacted against the so-called hard-line objectivist
Bravermanesque stance, which proposed that teacher work intensification was
simply misrecognised as professionalism and thus voluntarily supported by many
teachers. Hargreaves (1994: 127) argued this was both a ‘churlish’ and ‘theoretically
presumptuous’ position, while Gewirtz (1996) averred that ‘teachers are not the
passive dupes of classical Marxism, unwittingly coopted as agents of the state; they
are active agents resisting state control strategies and forcing their employers to
refine and rework those strategies’. Here Gewirtz (1996) advocated for ‘more
sophisticated versions of labour process [that] emphasize the subjective and con-
scious responses of teachers to the objective conditions which shape their work’.
Mainstream LPT has, of course, long been marked by an emphasis on worker
agency and, rather than a determining discourse, professionalism should be seen
as a ‘symbolic resource’ that ‘workplace actors as knowledgeable agents draw
on . . . in their relations of contestation and co-operation’ (Thompson and
Findlay, 1999, quoted in Marks and Thompson, 2010). Teachers, as Berry (2012)
notes, ‘guard the notion of themselves as professionals with intensity and their role
as professional people is central to the way in which most define themselves’ (p. 61).
Work intensification can be promoted by education departments and new layers of
management as part of a strengthened teacher professionalism, but in many
instances externally imposed changes to work have in fact led to the ‘feeling of a
general erosion of teacher professionalism [and] teachers’ loss of a ‘‘sense of con-
trol’’’ (Williamson and Myhill, 2008: 26). In such cases a ‘top-down’ organisational
professionalism is in tension with more collegial occupational professionalism
(Evetts, 2009). However, this latter occupational professionalism, emerging from
teachers’ own commitment to students and their needs, can itself operate as an
internally driven pressure on their work and strengthen processes of intensification
(Ballet and Kelchtermans, 2008; Williamson and Myhill, 2008).
Given the differentiated and often contested processes of work intensification
(Hargreaves, 1994), Ballet and Kelchtermans (2008, 2009) have argued for a focus
on the ‘experience of work intensification’, rather than intensification as a global
concept (Ballet et al., 2006). They argue that the ‘steering’ impact of external policies
on teachers is not always straightforward because ‘the experience of intensification is
mediated through processes of interpretation and sense-making that are influenced
by the organizational working conditions’ (Ballet and Kelchtermans, 2009), and as
such ‘external demands are always filtered, interpreted and negotiated and are
mediated by local autonomy and the professionalism of school teams’ (Ballet and
Kelchtermans, 2008: 48). They argue that the experience of intensification is strongly
influenced by the cultural and organisational characteristics of the school, which they
define as the school’s collegial relationships, leadership and cultural norms.
Moreover, they note that the impact of intensification is experienced differently
among different teachers: ‘Not all teachers experience it as negative or inhibiting’
(Ballet and Keltchtermans, 2008: 48). Similarly, Van Droogenbroeck et al. (2014)
found that interpersonal relationships are differentially related to burnout, which
they associate with an outcome of work intensification.
620 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

Despite the externally driven pressures and work intensification associated with
overarching education policy and organisational reform, the notion of differen-
tiated and often buffered experiences of intensification, related to the outlook of
the individual teacher and context, is therefore present in the literature. These key
points are particularly relevant to this study; however, we have sought to extend
such analyses beyond collegial relationships, leadership and cultural norms.
Specifically, we looked at school settings related to school geography, socio-
educational status and school type (primary and secondary). The article thereby
develops a spatially sensitive framework for analysing the experience of work
intensification, extending previous considerations of the geography of teachers
and teaching (see e.g. Brasche and Harrington, 2012; Cuervo, 2016; Cuervo
and Acquaro, 2016; Lassig et al., 2015), the influence of social advantage
(see e.g. Stacey, 2018; Thomson et al., 2016) and primary or secondary enrolment
(see e.g. McKenzie et al., 2014; Saltmarsh et al., 2015). The methods by which we
sought to do this are outlined in the following.

Methods
The data for this article consist of 22 face-to-face interviews with teachers attending
the 2015 annual conference of the NSWTF. The sampling strategy combined pur-
posive and convenience approaches (Harsh, 2011; Robinson, 2014). Most of the 22
interviewees at the annual conference were the Federation Representatives (‘Fed
Rep’), that is the local union delegates for their schools; others were NSWTF
members attending out of a more general interest. The teaching union delegates
were selected because of their unique position gained through union involvement,
combined with their knowledge of colleagues’, and their own, experience of work-
ing as teachers. Accessing these respondents via the annual conference also enabled
access to participants from rural (also described as ‘provincial’ – see later) areas.
Facilitated by the conference organisers, the participants were self-selected – dele-
gates volunteered to participate in this exploratory study. This process adequately
covered the sampling categories.
A case study method (Flyvbjerg, 2006) focusing on one union in a single
Australian state was appropriate given NSWTF’s status as the largest teacher
union in Australia and the influence of neoliberal reforms, including the presence
of workload issues, in NSW (McKenzie et al., 2014). Founded in 1918, the
Federation’s current membership is approximately 53,000, with women comprising
over 70% of its members (White, 2004). The Federation has typically sustained
high union membership and density levels, with 82% of the 65,000 teachers
employed in the NSW public education system in 2018 being members
(Fitzgerald, 2011a; NSW Department of Education, 2017; NSWTF, 2017). At
the time of the study, the Federation employed 46 full-time officers across various
senior leadership, professional and industrial roles.
The union delegates in this study are integral to the Federation’s structure. At
the union’s core is a focus on democracy and participation of members in its
Fitzgerald et al. 621

decision-making bodies (Fitzgerald, 2011a), including the Annual Conference

(approximately 600 delegates), a 300 rank-and-file member council that meets
eight times per year, and an Executive comprised of Federation leadership and
practising teachers (Fitzgerald, 2011a; Tattersall, 2006). This is supported by a
decentralised structure (over 160 regionally based teacher associations that meet
monthly), with membership activity and organisation concentrated at the local
branch level (Spaull and Hince, 1986) through a union delegate (Federation repre-
sentative), women’s contact and Workplace Committee in each public school
across the state (Tattersall, 2006).
Study participants ranged across primary (n ¼ 10) and secondary (n ¼ 12) school
settings. Interviews were semi-structured and covered hours of work, role as teacher
and Federation representative, how these have changed, and the effects of recent
policy shifts. Necessary background information was gathered covering respondents’
work history, broader policy context, location, and nature of school. A list of teach-
ing-relevant working conditions and employment conditions was used as a prompt if
required by participants; however, as elaborated in the following, participants
seemed to have difficulty articulating their thoughts on these whether shown the
list or not. The study was granted ethical approval by the University of Sydney,
NSW. At the time of the interviews the NSW DoE was named the Department of
Education and Communities (DEC).
Transcribed interviews were analysed inductively using nVIVOß through the
generation of codes, which were cross-checked to build analytical validity. We
analysed reports of change by relevant profile variables, namely school socio-
educational status (Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage
(ICSEA)),1 primary or secondary enrolment and metropolitan or provincial
location. For this purpose, ICSEA ratings from the My School website were
used to categorise schools as low, mid or high ICSEA. With a median of 1000
and a standard deviation of 100, schools with values below 950 were considered
low (n ¼ 5); between 950 and 1100 ‘mid’ (n ¼ 12); and above 1100, high (n ¼ 4).
There was, however, a need to exercise some flexibility in this with lower and
upper mid-status schools, detailed as relevant in the results below. Locational
designations were similarly established through the categorisation of schools on
the My School website, namely metropolitan, provincial or remote, through
which our sample broadly reflected the geographical distribution of students
(i.e. 74%, 25% and 1%, respectively; Thomson et al., 2016). For our sample,
16 teachers were from metropolitan schools and 6 from povincial ones but no
teachers were from remote schools, this relative lack of representation likely
reflecting the difficulty in attending a central event from such locations. We
do not make strong claims for representativeness of the sample, or the gener-
alisability of the findings in this exploratory, qualitative study. We report the
results of the study in such a way to show how the diversity of responses is
related to contextual factors. We also acknowledge the need for further research
in this area, preferably with a larger, more representative sample for strong
external validity.
622 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

Findings
Whole-sample findings
Teachers in our sample, given their active role in the union and as participants in
the union’s annual conference, were considered to have the capacity for informed
views concerning work-related issues in relation to current policy. Such potential
was perhaps realised in the comments of approximately one-third of teacher par-
ticipants, made without explicit prompting, regarding what they saw as the increas-
ing politicisation of schools. ‘There’s a disconnect between political decisions that
are being made and what actually needs to be made in the classroom’, one teacher
commented; another lamented that ‘it’s all about teacher bashing, three strikes
you’re out, new code of conduct, new dress code, how could we [DoE] save
money?’. Teachers linked politicisation to increasing pressures to perform, while
operating in an environment of ever-increasing innovation.
Indeed, multiple teachers were also quick to comment that they felt some of the
innovations and initiatives implemented in their schools were not founded in research,
but rather implemented to respond to the increasing performance pressures and the
political agendas that heightened these. One teacher felt that recent developments in
the Department were ‘all based on fiscal’. Another put forward the idea that:

now the DEC doesn’t make decisions based on what’s best for children, parents, or
teachers [but] what’s best for them politically. So there’s this horrible position
where you’ve got child-based decisions that need to be made but they’re making them
with politics.

Half of our sample commented on cuts of various size and shape, either to school
funding or other support services used by teachers. Cuts in the Department were
largely viewed with cynicism – as being about ‘where [they] can save some bucks’.
District offices were described as being ‘like ghost towns’, while central curriculum
consultants were also described as having been vastly reduced: ‘they sacked every-
one at the DEC [in this role]’. Thus the provision of support for teachers was seen
as being reduced, while simultaneously, requirements for teachers to perform were
reported to have increased.
Indeed, the most overriding theme reported nearly unanimously across these
interviews was that of an increased workload. ‘We never have enough time to do
anything. I always feel like I’m band-aiding things’, one stated. Another was
emphatic: ‘workload has increased, definitely’; ‘it’s just been crazy, it’s been like
nonstop’. Within this, the most dominant concern seemed to be with administrative
requirements, and particularly paperwork. One interviewee expressed this suc-
cinctly as ‘a tsunami of paperwork’, while the same participant who felt she was
‘band-aiding things’ explained how

the pile just grows and grows and grows and then, so then you start a new pile . . . I’ve got
a pile on this side of my desk and then when that pile started to get too big there’s a new
Fitzgerald et al. 623

pile on that side. And now there’s a pile growing on my computer table as well. And it’s
all of this paperwork that I have to get through.

Another participant commented that ‘it’s a huge workload, you can’t just keep
putting more and more and more and more and more. Something’s got to give’.
One teacher felt as though ‘to have the best come from the students you’ve also got
to look after your staff and teachers, and by working them to the bone, to the point
of breaking, I don’t see that as beneficial at all’. Two other teachers discussed pres-
sures to provide personalised learning plans, thus requiring additional workload in
terms of accessing technology-based assessment data, including NAPLAN, as well as
completing the documents themselves. As another participant commented, ‘the com-
pletion of all those documents . . . we’ve got students that will have up to five different
documents attached to [i.e. associated with] them’. Although not all paperwork was
new, and not all participants necessarily saw it as growing (one participant com-
mented that she had ‘always felt swamped by the paperwork’), its impact and the
frequency of its reference by interviewees was striking.
A third of teachers explicitly linked such increased administrative requirements
to increases in performance and accountability mechanisms, saying that ‘the
accountability and the double checking of things has been huge’; in another inter-
view, that ‘it’s about ticking the boxes, doing this and that’. A further participant
explained how ‘now you’ve got to get a million people to sign off on something and
check that you’ve read sixteen thousand policies, that you’ve got all the paper. . .
everything now is a minefield’. This was also seen as related to devolutionary
changes. One participant stated that ‘the reality is there isn’t the funding any
more, the release and the time to pay for people to do this so more and more of
it comes down to you’. Another explained that ‘people in schools are doing more,
stuff that used to be handled a little bit further up the ladder isn’t being handled
further up the ladder’. There was also a sense within the research data that this
increased paperwork had an interactive effect – magnifying the impact of all the
other reported changes. The participant last quoted, for instance, also referred to
cuts to staff welfare programmes.
The only positive report on devolution-driven changes by a teacher was also
qualified, creating a sense of ambivalence. This participant felt that increased
responsibility was good; however, the associated lack of support was noted with
some concern. In reference to the new professional development framework which
teachers in NSW need to complete, this participant commented:

I think [this] has been put in place in some way because we have lost our consultants who
used to [provide] support, where . . . part of . . . the professional development framework
is . . . putting the onus back on teachers to work together. And I think that’s a good thing,
[but] it would be nice to have some sort of experts there as well to sort of guide us along.

This exemplifies the misrecognition of work intensification as professionalism,

yet this sole, partially positive reaction to the changes is in tension with the
624 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

clearly dominant view that saw the changes as politicisation. What is surprising,
given the participants and context of the interviews, is that there was not more
emphasis placed on the politicisation issue; that is, the manner in which political
influences are impacting on teachers’ work and conditions. Moreover, it is also
surprising that teachers did not have much to say in relation to employment
conditions (specifically the changing nature of the management of their work).
Indeed, their discussion of working conditions was heavily oriented towards
workload increases, as seen earlier. The changes in the management of their
work did not figure prominently.

Context-specific findings
Noticeable differences from disaggregated results, according to the ICSEA, level of
schooling (primary, secondary) and metropolitan or provincial location are out-
lined in the following.

ICSEA. It is well established that the level of advantage of a student body

influences student learning and achievement (Thomson et al., 2016). It also
affects teachers. In low-ICSEA schools, negotiation of the curriculum in
what is essentially a middle-class institution, that of schooling, can require
more and different work for teachers (Stacey, 2018). Such schools can also
contain greater concentrations of students with varied and particular needs
due to processes of residualisation, as a result of the operation of market
forces (Stacey, 2018). Meanwhile, in higher ICSEA schools, expectations for
teachers can centre more on matters of public relations, for instance in regards
to extracurricular provision (Stacey, 2018). There is therefore the potential for
difference in respect to working conditions accompanying these contrasting edu-
cational contexts.
The sole mention of student behaviour as a relevant aspect of working con-
ditions was expressed by a teacher from a school with a markedly low ICSEA
rating (below 900). Similarly, concerns regarding special education provision were
mentioned only by teachers in low-ICSEA schools. There were also some trends
relating to comments which, although not exclusively from participants working
in schools with ICSEA values below 950, all came from participants in schools
below the median of 1000. In these schools, comments reflecting a sense of ani-
mosity against the principal and expressions of concern at a perceived lack of
‘staff welfare’ were found. One participant in this context explained how, when he
raised issues with his principal, his concerns were dismissed with the response
‘we’re all busy’. Another said, ‘our principal adopts the philosophy at the school
[that] it’s not her job to make the staff happy’. Similarly, all the comments about
‘non-evidence based’ initiatives in schools also came from contexts with ICSEA
values below 1000.
In schools with average ICSEA scores, there was more reference to paren-
tal pressures, including the perception of negative interactions with parents.
Fitzgerald et al. 625

One participant commented that ‘the parents can make your life a misery’;
another that:

they come from the corporate world and they want KPIs and all this . . . that’s not what
we do . . . it can be very difficult to negotiate with those sorts of parents and, of course,
abuse from parents has greatly increased.

These teachers were also more likely to comment on the loss of services.
One reported that ‘now we’ve got no one to go to. So we are sort of muddling
around in the dark’. This participant went on to explain the kind of support that
does tend to be available these days, which is web based and inadequate: ‘here’s the
website for your staff member who was going to run the training, but the
trainer wasn’t trained’. Of dire importance, there was also a concern from two
teachers from average-ICSEA schools that the increased workload was affecting
their teaching.

So there’s all these different things going on at school but it’s also the extra admin work
that’s put on top of the teaching which has [been] really affected – I guess in the bottom
line it is affecting the quality [of] teaching.

In high-ICSEA contexts, concerns of student welfare – particularly anxiety – were

more evident. For instance, one participant from a selective secondary school
expressed concern about the lack of support for high-achieving language back-
ground other than English students, who did not qualify for support but needed
it. In this section of the market – as with the teachers from the average ICSEA
schools – there was also mention of parents. One participant commented on par-
ents’ wanting her personal information: ‘we have parents demanding it [her email
and personal phone number] and wanting you to email their child’s homework and
wanting private meetings all the time’. Another participant in this context spoke of
‘whisper campaigns’ around NAPLAN results, and hinted at a resulting break-
down of collegiality – ‘we should be working together, and until NAPLAN, every-
body did. But now there’s constant whispers about what did we get this year, and
who was on the grade the year before, and you know, it’s not good’.

Primary and secondary schools. Subject specialisation is a feature of secondary teach-

ing with teachers commonly teaching across several year levels, whereas primary
teachers ordinarily remain as ‘generalists’ (McKenzie et al., 2014), teaching a
single-level class for a whole year across all subject areas. Primary teachers’
work involves more hours face to face with their single class of students
(McKenzie et al., 2014), while secondary teachers spend less hours face to face,
but teach a range of classes constituted by different groups of students across
different year levels and, with correspondingly substantial marking and preparation
duties, almost match the total average work hours of primary teachers. Another
key difference is in relation to the nature and degree of involvement of parents.
626 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

Research has indicated that middle-class parents, in particular, actively nurture the
education of their children in primary years, both inside and outside of school
(Lareau, 2011). Such active involvement diminishes (Saltmarsh et al., 2015) –
although does not cease (Stacey, 2016) – as students move into the secondary
context, where one of parents’ main forms of involvement becomes choice of
school, given the greater variation in market ‘options’ in the secondary sector
(Stacey, 2018).
In our sample, primary school teachers commented on increased paperwork, and
in addition described workload increases in relation to reporting, programming
and technology requirements. They also recounted experiencing negative inter-
actions with parents. This was especially apparent in responses from teachers in
high-ICSEA schooling contexts. All issues of ‘stress’ that arose in these interviews
were expressed by the primary school teacher participants, with one even saying
that she knew ‘teachers in [her] area’ who had ‘contemplated suicide because of
how hard the job is’ and another that she has ‘seen people [teachers] almost go
under . . . too overworked and stressed . . . there’s too much of that’.
Although negative parent–teacher interactions were less commented on by sec-
ondary school teachers, they too reported increasing workload, primarily through
paperwork, but also due to assessment and differentiated teaching requirements. In
addition, these teachers referred to a greater focus on particular kinds of indivi-
dualised student need. For instance, a teacher in a high-ICSEA metropolitan select-
ive high school commented on the need to ‘help kids with their organisation or
their anxiety’, while a teacher in a low-ICSEA provincial high school explained that
while a relatively new focus on ‘kids as individuals’ with ‘individual needs’ was
understandable – ‘how can you argue with the theory of it? You can’t’ – such an
approach to teaching still meant ‘a lot more work’.

Location. Geographical location can shape the nature of schooling and impact on
teaching and teachers in schools. Surrounded by a greater number of schools, those
in metropolitan areas can be exposed to intense competition. Rural and remote
schools may have difficulty attracting and retaining staff (Cuervo and Acquaro,
2016; Fitzgerald et al., 2018), which can establish an enduring sense of transience,
even for the teachers who remain in such locations (Stacey, 2018), and teachers can
experience a ‘fishbowl’ effect whereby they are highly visible in the community
(Brasche and Harrington, 2012). There is also often a requirement to teach multiple
subjects and/or teach out of field because of fewer staff to cover the curriculum, and
relatedly, a sense of isolation for a teacher who may be the only specialist in his or
her area (Cuervo, 2016). Teachers are also often parents, subject to the pressures of
school choice, which might tempt them away from rural and remote areas to more
abundant schooling options elsewhere (Lassig et al., 2015).
In metropolitan schools, interviewees focused more heavily on concerns with, and
indeed some animosity towards, principals and parents. One mid-ICSEA metro-
politan high school teacher explained how there was ‘a lot more demand from
[their] parent body’ these days, while a mid-ICSEA metropolitan primary school
Fitzgerald et al. 627

teacher, quoted above, commented that parents ‘can make your life misery’.
Meanwhile, a high-ICSEA metropolitan primary school teacher was quite vocal
about principals, describing some they knew of as ‘gutless’ ‘DEC stooges’, unwill-
ing to ‘stand up’ against political change.
The only two comments regarding special needs for students, meanwhile, were
both in provincial schools with low ICSEA values. Conversely, issues with being
fearful of recrimination from superiors or being unable to take breaks (‘you could
not have gone to the bathroom between 8.00 and 1.10pm’ given successive work
tasks of staff meeting–class–recess duty) were all discussed by metropolitan par-
ticipants and not by provincial ones.

Discussion
The results of this study indicate that teachers’ working conditions are affected by a
complex range of interacting factors, difficult to quarantine or to understand in
isolation. One of these factors is the influence of neoliberal policy enveloping the
whole of Australia, although with some visible differences at various levels and
geographical scales, reflected in different state-level policies and market technolo-
gies. Our article illustrates one effect of these, namely the intensification of teaching
work, in regard to one state jurisdiction, NSW.
The major finding in this study, that teachers were experiencing an increased and
unmanageable workload, manifest especially in piles of paperwork, may at first
seem unrelated to devolutionary approaches to schooling. However, it reflects a
symptom of a neoliberal approach. Greater ‘responsibility’ in modern neoliberali-
sations (Peck, 2010) is accompanied by increased accountability requirements
(Brennan, 2009; Dinham, 2013), and a number of our participants explicitly
linked their workload concerns with such mechanisms. When central services
are cut (‘diminished support’) – something our participants told us about abun-
dantly – burdens need to be shifted, and someone needs to be made ‘accountable’,
leading to the apparently paradoxical, simultaneous decentralisation and increas-
ing centralisation that we have seen in neoliberal reforms globally (Connell, 2013).
‘Autonomy’ in this sense could almost be defined as synonymous with increases in
workload.
Very few interviewees, however, referred to a specific policy or policies in rela-
tion to conditions of work and employment. This was because, first, few teachers
articulated anything in relation to employment conditions. Second, interviewees’
reports relating to conditions of work were consistently oriented towards workload
increases, as we have seen, and these effects are not directly articulated in education
policy but are instead a ‘second-order’ effect of them (Ball, 1993). The increased
workloads were discussed in relation to the removal of central DoE services and
also the loss of other within-school budgets and support. It is interesting that while
teachers clearly perceived these as losses, they can be explained in relation to the
new autonomy of principals who are now free to control substantial budgets
(Gavin and McGrath-Champ, 2016). This aspect of the changing form of
628 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

management that governs teachers’ labour process was not highlighted by the
respondents. Principals may simply see these losses as ‘using money differently’;
indeed, we know that principals have had a rather more positive response to devo-
lutionary measures in NSW (McGrath-Champ et al., 2019) than those evinced here
by our teachers.
Overall, it is pertinent that although teachers were asked about their conditions
of work and employment conditions, most of their responses were not concerned
with industrial issues but were instead concerned with school aims. They appeared
primarily guided by an occupational professionalism, concerned with students and
their needs. This belies (often politically popular) notions of teachers’ union mem-
bers being inappropriately self-interested and insufficiently committed to their jobs.
It also reflects that teachers who take on the role of union workplace delegate (Fed
Reps) are not necessarily imbued- prior to or even during their term- with vast
industrial relations knowledge (Peetz and Alexander, 2013), but rather do so out of
general interest, or in some instances due to the necessity for ‘someone’ to take on
this unpaid role for which they receive no workload offset. It may also reflect that
these workplace delegates, in common with their counterparts in other industries
(such as higher education), are not always able to see beyond the ‘trees’ that sur-
round them (work intensification) to understand the wider ‘forest’ (configuration of
employment-relations institutions and regulations that establish their within-school
experiences of work).
Our study also indicates that work intensification is differentiated in other ‘fine-
grained’ ways. Teachers’ working environments can best be understood when situ-
ated within their local school context (in which the principal is seen as an important
force; Fitzgerald et al., 2018), which is in turn affected by the factors including
those outlined above relating to socio-educational status, primary or secondary
orientation and location. This local school context is then subject to broader gov-
ernance technologies (Lingard et al., 2013), which themselves are influenced by the
particular political philosophies within which they are articulated. A strictly linear
sequence of policy effects ‘up’ and ‘down’ a scalar hierarchy from national, through
state, to regional and local is not appropriate or advocated here (Herod et al.,
2010), nor is the power balance between these components considered equal.
However, teachers are subject to these forces; while pushback is certainly possible,
and occurs daily, the ‘weight’ of what must be pushed back is nevertheless
substantial and, it appears, growing.
Indeed, the finding that participants saw teaching as increasingly politicised
reflects the current status of education, which is seen as a crucial aspect of inter-
national economic competitiveness (Ball, 2008). The comments by participants that
particular programmes being introduced to schools were not ‘evidence-based’ is
perhaps related to such anxieties. Recent research has taken a critical view of policy
that claims to be ‘evidence-based’ (e.g. Welch, 2015), given that current competitive
orientations towards education have led to some perverse interpretations and
manipulations of data (Lingard and Sellar, 2013). Given that all mentions of this
‘non-evidence-based’ approach came from schools with ICSEA ratings below 1000,
Fitzgerald et al. 629

it is possible that this reflects a sense of pressure for such schools in raising ‘results’
within an era of national testing and accountability, which may encourage a search
for quick solutions to complex problems.
Similarly, market-related responses were visible across the disaggregation out-
lined above. The responses of teachers in schools serving students experiencing
socio-educational disadvantage reflected a range of complex student needs indi-
cative of schools which have been residualised by market forces (Stacey, 2018;
Thomson et al., 2016), as well as a sense of both teachers and principals being
overwhelmed by such demands. Meanwhile, teachers in schools in advantaged
positions had a focus on working with engaged, and at times intrusive, parental
interest – middle-class parents tend to be much more visibly involved in school-
ing and in extracting the product they expect will be provided for them
(Campbell et al., 2009; Lareau, 2011; Stacey, 2016). Parents’ anxieties were
also more visible in the primary setting, reflecting their greater involvement at
that level (meanwhile, a focus on being prepared for individual students was
evident at secondary level – however, this may simply reflect the greater total
number of students with which secondary teachers interact daily). Parents were
also a focus of those who worked in metropolitan schools. This is arguably
because schools in metropolitan areas are more overtly subject to market forces,
surrounded as they can be with more intense competition. Such intensities were
possibly also the source of the increased tensions visible between teachers and
their principals, who would perhaps seek to extract more from their staff in
order to better their market position. In provincial schools, market competitive-
ness holds less obvious sway, except in its articulation through larger concen-
trations of disadvantage, potentially reflected in these participants’ greater focus
on special needs. It is also possible that the relative lack of animosity towards
principals and parents in provincial schools reflects the greater levels of care
that can be present in such settings (McGrath-Champ et al., 2019), given their
status as harder to staff.
There is a widespread trend today, emanating from the realm of psychology
(Riley, 2014), to locate the issue of work overload at the individual level with
accompanying ‘solutions’ being for individuals to ‘fix themselves’ via ‘wellness’
activities and programmes (Krupka, 2015). While Ballet et al. (2006) and Ballet
and Kelchtermans (2009) have revealed that work intensification differs accord-
ing to interpersonal relations and individual teachers’ perspectives, conveying
that individual factors and perceptions mediate the experiences of work over-
load and stress, it has become commonplace to overlook the insidiousness of
over-inflated expectations of the quantum of work that a person can undertake.
Moreover, as heralded by Godard (2014), the overly individualistic, psychologic-
ally founded approaches to employment relations and human resource manage-
ment from which contemporary workplace management commonly emanates
denies and misconstrues the existence and necessity of the institutional fabric
of employment relations policy and processes, including the role of trade unions
and collective voice.
630 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

Conclusion
In examining issues concerning workload of school teachers within the multi-
layered and complex array of employment and education policy, this article pro-
vides evidence of devolution-driven work intensification. The study furnishes indi-
cative evidence of a general process of neoliberalism enveloping Australian
education, albeit with variations at several scales. The state level (or ‘scale’)
holds prominence via different policy prescriptions and market technologies and
we provide some insights about what is happening in the state of NSW, establishing
a foundation for comparison with other states.
There are other ways in which workload impact is differentiated and we have
begun to unpack just a few, identifying indicative effects of socio-educational
advantage, school enrolment type and within-state location. This makes clear
that work intensification for teachers is very widespread, yet is not the same ‘every-
where’. There is a need to look across a wide spectrum of differentiating influences
to trace and understand this phenomenon of work intensification more fully. In
doing so we concur with Gewirtz’s (1996) call for a simultaneous recognition of the
‘local variations in the internal regimes of control in schools’ and a focus on
‘policies that represent responses to structural problems of the state [that] have
some generalised effects across the school system’ (emphasis in original). There
must be an insistence that broader employment institutions, mechanisms and regu-
lation be reinserted into the explanatory landscape, as a focus on the individual as
the locus of this matter is false, fraught and will fail to provide a ‘remedy’. There is
a need to appreciate ‘the different ways in which teachers are responding to the
attempted imposition of a new teaching culture’ (Gewirtz, 1996, emphasis in ori-
ginal); yet approaching this issue with a sense of the collective, institutional dimen-
sion highlights the need for pushback in regard to systemic drivers of work
intensification.
To further interrogate and unpack the neoliberal meta-narrative, there needs to
be (a) more fine-grained research on the mutually constitutive nature of work and
its intensification, (b) larger scale investigation of this within the current NSW
context and (c) equivalent study in other states and national contexts that can
establish a foundation for action. Such an approach will serve to further map
the effects of policy change in the current political climate for teachers. Yet in
doing so, it can also serve as a point of comparison for other public sector profes-
sionals, and thus speak back to policymakers at both state and national levels, and
across a range of occupational arenas.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication
of this article.
Fitzgerald et al. 631

Note
1. The Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) is a specific measure of
students’ socio-educational advantage, as a function of parents’ occupation as well as
school- and non-school-based educational attainment. The measure also includes school-
level factors of location and Indigenous student enrolment. Unlike measures of socio-eco-
nomic status, the ICSEA measure does not directly reflect parental wealth (Australian
Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2015).

References
Apple MW (1986) Teachers and Texts: A Political Economy of Class and Gender Relations in
Education. London: Routledge.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2015) Guide to
understanding ICSEA (Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage) values: Fact
sheet. Available at: www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Guide_to_understanding_icsea_
values.pdf (accessed 15 January 2018).
Ball SJ (1993) What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education 13(2): 10–17.
Ball SJ (2008) The Education Debate. Bristol: Policy Press.
Ballet K and Kelchtermans G (2008) Workload and willingness to change: Disentangling the
experience of intensification. Journal of Curriculum Studies 40(1): 47–67.
Ballet K and Kelchtermans G (2009) Struggling with workload: Primary teachers’ experience
of intensification. Teaching and Teacher Education 25(8): 1150–1157.
Ballet K, Kelchtermans G and Loughran J (2006) Beyond intensification towards a schol-
arship of practice: Analysing changes in teachers’ work lives. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice 12(2): 209–229.
Berry J (2012) An investigation into teachers’ professional autonomy in England: Implications
for policy and practice. PhD Thesis, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield.
Brasche I and Harrington I (2012) Promoting teacher quality and continuity: Tackling the
disadvantage of Indigenous schools in the Northern Territory. Australian Journal of
Education 56(2): 110–125.
Braverman H (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brennan M (2009) Steering teachers: Working to control the feminized profession of edu-
cation. Journal of Sociology 45(4): 339–359.
Burchielli R (2006) The intensification of teachers’ work and the role of changed public
sector philosophy. International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management 6(2–4): 146–160.
Burchielli R, Pearson P and Rani Thanacoody P (2005) Managing the intensity of teaching:
A research agenda. In: Reworking Work: Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the
Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand
(AIRAANZ), February, University of Sydney, Sydney, pp. 95–102.
Burgess J and Connell J (2005) Reworking work: What are the issues for Australia? In:
Reworking Work: Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the Association of Industrial
Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ), February, University
of Sydney, Sydney, pp. 103–110.
Campbell C, Proctor H and Sherington G (2009) School Choice: How Parents Negotiate the
New School Market in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
632 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

Caro J (2012) Schools of thought clash on principals’ autonomy. Sydney Morning Herald,
5 March. Available at: www.smh.com.au/nsw/schools-of-thought-clash-on-principals-
autonomy-20120304-1uaxl.html (accessed 10 November 2017).
Carter B (1997) The restructuring of teaching and the restructuring of class. British Journal
of Sociology of Education 18(2): 201–215.
Carter B and Stevenson H (2012) Teachers, workforce remodelling and the challenge to
labour process analysis. Work, Employment and Society 26(3): 481–496.
Connell R (1985) Teachers’ Work. Sydney: 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.
Considine G (2012) Neo-liberal reforms in NSW public secondary education: What has hap-
pened to teachers’ work? PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, Australia.
Cuervo H (2016) Understanding Social Justice in Rural Education. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Cuervo H and Acquaro D (2016) Exploring Urban University Pre-service Teacher Motivations
and Barriers to Teaching in Rural Schools. Melbourne: Australian Association for Research
in Education.
Dinham S (2013) The quality teaching movement in Australia encounters difficult terrain:
A personal perspective. Australian Journal of Education 57(91): 91–106.
Evetts J (2009) New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities and
consequences. Comparative Sociology 8(2): 247–266.
Findlay P and Thompson P (2017) Contemporary work: Its meanings and demands. Journal
of Industrial Relations 59(2): 122–138.
Fitzgerald D (2011a) Teachers and Their Times: History and the Teachers Federation.
Sydney: UNSW Press.
Fitzgerald L (2011b) Responses by teachers and their unions to changing work. The
Economic and Labour Relations Review 22(1): 115–129.
Fitzgerald S and Rainnie A (2012) Failing forward: Public schools and new public manage-
ment. Public Policy 7(2): 167–182.
Fitzgerald S, Stacey M, McGrath-Champ S, et al. (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.
Fitzgerald T and Knipe S (2016) Policy reform: Testing times for teacher education in
Australia. Journal of Educational Administration and History 48(4): 358–369.
Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry
12(2): 219–245.
Freeman C, O’Malley K and Eveleigh F (2014) Australian Teachers and the Learning
Environment: An Analysis of Teacher Response to TALIS 2013: Final Report. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Gavin M and McGrath-Champ S (2016) Devolving authority: The impact of giving public
schools power to hire staff. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 55: 255–274.
Gewirtz S (1996) Post-welfarism and the reconstruction of teachers’ work. In: British Educational
Research Association Conference, September, University of Lancaster, Lancaster. Available at:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000132.htm (accessed 10 November 2017).
Gewirtz S (1997) Post-welfarism and the reconstruction of teachers’ work in the UK. Journal
of Education Policy 12(4): 217–231.
Godard J (2014) The psychologisation of employment relations? Human Resource
Management Journal 24(1): 1–18.
Fitzgerald et al. 633

Hargreaves A (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the
Postmodern Age. London: Cassell.
Harsh S (2011) Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research
Journal 11(2): 63–75.
Herod A, McGrath-Champ S and Rainnie A (2010) Foundations. In: McGrath-Champ S,
Herod A and Rainnie A (eds) Handbook of Employment and Society: Working Space.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–16.
Jensen B (2013) The Myth of Markets in School Education. Melbourne: Grattan Institute.
Johnson S, Cooper C, Cartwright S, et al. (2005) The experience of work-related stress
across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology 20(2): 178–187.
Knott M (2016) Teach for Australia: Turnbull government provides new funding to extend
controversial program. Sydney Morning Herald, 18 December. Available at: www.smh.
com.au/politics/federal/teach-for-australia-turnbull-government-provides-new-funding-
to-extend-controversial-program-20161218-gtdjm2.html (accessed 3 July 2017).
Krupka Z (2015) No, it’s not you: Why ‘wellness’ isn’t the answer to overwork. The
Conversation, 22 May. Available at: theconversation.com/no-its-not-you-why-wellness-
isnt-the-answer-to-overwork-42124?utm_source¼facebookandutm_medium¼facebook
button (accessed 10 July 2017).
Lambert R, Gillan M and Fitzgerald S (2005) Electrolux in Australia: Deregulation, indus-
try restructuring and the dynamics of bargaining. Journal of Industrial Relations 47(3):
261–275.
Lareau A (2011) Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Lassig C, Doherty C and Moore K (2015) The private problem with public service: Rural
teachers in educational markets. Journal of Educational Administration and History 47(2):
117–139.
Le Fevre M, Boxall P and Macky K (2015) Which workers are more vulnerable to work
intensification? An analysis of two national surveys. International Journal of Manpower
36(6): 966–983.
Lemaire J (2016) Work stress focus. Education: Journal of the New South Wales Teachers
Federation 97(8): 5.
Lingard B and Sellar S (2013) ‘Catalyst data’: Perverse systemic effects of audit and account-
ability in Australian schooling. Journal of Education Policy 28(5): 634–656.
Lingard B, Martino W and Rezai-Rashti G (2013) Testing regimes, accountabilities and
education policy: Commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education
Policy 28(5): 539–556.
McGrath-Champ S, Stacey M, Wilson R, et al. (2019) Principals’ support for teachers’ work-
ing conditions in devolved school settings. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership 47(4): 590–605.
McKenzie M, Bieler A and McNeil R (2015) Education policy mobility: Reimagining sus-
tainability in neoliberal times. Environmental Education Research 21(3): 319–337.
McKenzie P, Weldon P, Rowley G, et al. (2014) Staff in Australia’s Schools 2013: Main
Report on the Survey. Melbourne: ACER.
Marks A and Thompson P (2010) Beyond the blank slate: Identities and interests at work.
In: Thompson P and Smith C (eds) Working Life: Renewing Labour Process Analysis.
(Critical Perspectives on Work and Employment series). London: Palgrave Macmillan,
pp. 316–338.
634 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

Mockler N (2013) Reporting the ‘education revolution’: MySchool.edu.au in the print

media. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 34(1): 1–16.
New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education (2017) Annual Report 2016. Sydney:
NSW Department of Education.
New South Wales Department of Education and Communities (NSW DEC) (2014) Local
schools, local decisions fact sheet. Available at: schoolsequella.det.nsw.edu.au/file/
2d66a9c5-496d-4b8c-b80d-e80b608cb2d8/1/Local-Schools-Local-Decisions-fact-sheets.
pdf (accessed 4 March 2017).
New South Wales Department of Education and Communities (NSW DEC) (2017) The
local schools, local decisions report card. Available at: schoolsequella.det.nsw.edu.au/
file/01aaf26c-efc8-4344-b390-517c91460e43/1/LSLDReportCard.pdf (accessed 10 July
2017).
New South Wales Teachers Federation (NSWTF) (2016) Workload toll conveyed. Available
at: www.nswtf.org.au/pages/workload-toll-conveyed.html (accessed 6 March 2017).
New South Wales Teachers Federation (NSWTF) (2017) Annual Report 2017. Sydney: NSW
Teachers Federation.
Niesche R and Thomson P (2017) Freedom to what ends? School autonomy in neoliberal
times. In: Waite D and Bogotch I (eds) The Wiley International Handbook of Educational
Leadership. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 193–206.
O’Brien J (1987) A Divided Unity! Politics of NSW Teacher Militancy since 1945. Sydney:
Allen and Unwin.
Ozga J and Lawn M (1988) Schoolwork: Interpreting the labour process of teaching. British
Journal of Sociology of Education 9(3): 323–336.
Peck J (2010) Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peetz D and Alexander M (2013) A synthesis of research on training of union delegates.
Industrial Relations Journal 44(4): 425–442.
Peetz D and Murray G (2011) ‘You get really old, really quick’: Involuntary long hours in
the mining industry. Journal of Industrial Relations 53(1): 13–29.
Reid A (2003) Understanding teachers’ work: Is there still a place for labour process theory?
British Journal of Sociology of Education 24(5): 559–573.
Riley P (2014) Australian Principal Health and Wellbeing Survey: 2011–2014. Sydney:
Australian Catholic University.
Robinson OC (2014) Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and
practical guide. Qualitative research in psychology 11(1): 25–41.
Saltmarsh S, Barr J and Chapman A (2015) Preparing for parents: How Australian teacher
education is addressing the question of parent-school engagement. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education 35(1): 69–84.
Sherington G and Hughes J (2012) Education. In: Clune D and Smith R (eds) From Carr to
Keneally: Labor in Office in NSW 1995–2011. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp. 138–149.
Smyth J (2001) Critical Politics of Teachers’ Work: An Australian Perspective. New York:
Peter Lang.
Spaull A and Hince K (1986) Industrial Relations and State Education in Australia.
Blackburn: Australasian Educa Press.
Stacey M (2016) Middle class parents’ educational work at an academically selective public
high school. Critical Studies in Education 57(2): 209–223.
Stacey M (2017) The teacher ‘problem’: An analysis of the NSW education policy. Great
Teaching, Inspired Learning Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 38(5):
782–793.
Fitzgerald et al. 635

Stacey M (2018) Early career teachers’ negotiation of a marketised hierarchy of schools: From
the safety net to the high wire. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, Australia.
Tattersall A (2006) Bringing the community in: Possibilities for public sector union success
through community unionism. International Journal of Human Resources Development
and Management 6(2–4): 186–199.
Thompson G and 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, De Bortoli L and Underwood C (2016) PISA 2015: A First Look at Australia’s
Results, Programme for International Student Assessment. Melbourne: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Van Droogenbroeck F, Spruyt B and Vanroelen C (2014) Burnout among senior teachers:
Investigating the role of workload and interpersonal relationships at work. Teaching and
Teacher Education 43: 99–109.
Watson I, Buchanan J, Campbell I, et al. (2003) Fragmented Futures: New Challenges in
Working Life. Sydney: Federation Press.
Welch A (2015) Evidence-based policy: Epistemologically specious, ideologically unsound.
In: Proctor H, Brownlee P and Freebody P (eds) Controversies in Education: Orthodoxy
and Heresy in Policy and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 63–80.
White S-L (2004) Redefining activism: Gender perspectives in union participation. Surry Hills:
NSW Teachers Federation.
Wilkins A (2018) Assembling schools as organisations: On the limits and contradictions of
neoliberalism. In: Connolly M, James C, Kruse S, et al. (eds) SAGE International
Handbook on School Organization. London: SAGE, pp. 509–523.
Williamson J and Gardner C (2015) Teacher involvement in Australia. In: Menlo A and
Collet L (eds) Do Teachers Wish to Be Agents of Change? Will Principals Support Them?
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 73–97.
Williamson J and Myhill M (2008) Under ‘constant bombardment’: Work intensification
and the teachers’ role. In: Johnson D and Maclean R (eds) Teaching: Professionalization,
Development and Leadership: Festschrift for Professor Eric Hoyle. Dordrecht: Springer,
pp. 25–43.
Zadkovich G (1999) To Deliver Us Our Future: Developing Strategy for Difficult Times.
Sydney: NSW Teachers Federation.

Biographical notes
Scott Fitzgerald is Senior Lecturer in the Curtin Business School’s School of
Management. His research interests cover public services (especially education)
and new public management, as well as cultural industry corporations and creative
work. His research projects span various disciplines: industrial relations, sociology,
political economy, and media and communication studies.

Susan McGrath-Champ is Associate Professor in the Work and Organisational

Studies Discipline at the University of Sydney Business School, Australia. Her
research includes the geographical aspects of the world of work, employment rela-
tions and international human resource management. Recent studies include those
of school teachers’ work and working conditions.
636 Journal of Industrial Relations 61(5)

Meghan Stacey is a former high school English and drama teacher and current
academic with the Sydney School of Education and Social Work and the Discipline
of Work and Organisational Studies at the University of Sydney. Meghan’s pri-
mary research interests sit at the intersection of sociological theory, policy soci-
ology and the experiences of those subject to systems of education. Meghan’s PhD
was conferred in April 2018.

Rachel Wilson is Senior Lecturer at The Sydney School of Education and Social
Work at the University of Sydney. She has expertise in educational assessment,
research methods and programme evaluation. As such she has broad interests
across educational evidence, policy and practice. She is interested in system-level
reform and has been involved in designing, implementing and researching many
university and school education reforms.

Mihajla Gavin is a PhD candidate at the University of Sydney Business School and
has worked as a senior officer in the public sector in Australia across various
workplace relations advisory, policy and project roles. Mihajla’s research is con-
cerned with analysing the response of teacher unions to neoliberal education
reform that has affected teachers’ conditions of work.