Exploring Variations in Teachers' Work, Lives and Their Effects on Pupils: Key Findings and Implications from a Longitudinal Mixed Methods Study

This article outlines the research design of a large‐scale, longitudinal research study in England intended to describe and explore variations in teachers' work, lives and their effects on pupils' educational outcomes. The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and incorporated into the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) as an ‘Associate Project’, used an innovative mixed‐methods research design to create case studies of 300 teachers in Years 2, 6 and 9. The research was conducted over three consecutive academic years and collected a wide range of data through interviews, questionnaire surveys of teachers' and pupils' views and assessment data on pupils' attainments in English and mathematics. The text summarises the main findings from the research in relation to four interconnected themes of the study: Professional Life Phases; Professional Identity; Relative Effectiveness; and Resilience and Commitment. The influence of school context, in terms of level of social disadvantage of pupil intake, is also investigated. Key findings and their implications for policy and practice are highlighted.

Variations in the Work and Lives of Teachers: Relative and Relational Effectiveness

The VITAE project is a four‐year (2001–2005) research study, commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills, conducted with 300 teachers in 100 schools in seven local education authorities in England. The project aimed to identify factors that may affect their work and lives over time and how these factors may, in turn, impact on their teaching and subsequent pupil progress and outcomes. It combined quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis in order to define and examine notions of teachers' relational and relative effectiveness. The first part of the paper addresses the nature of effectiveness and three key themes relating to the changing contexts of teachers' work, lives and effectiveness: the challenge of reform to notions of professionalism; professional identities; changes in teachers' work and lives. The research design and early findings and their effects upon the development of the research form the second part. The final part of the paper discusses three sets of understandings which are fundamental to any consideration of teachers' work, lives and effectiveness: relative and relational effectiveness; teacher identities; teachers' life and work contexts. The research suggests that policy‐makers, school leaders and teachers themselves need to attend to these if teacher recruitment, retention and standards are to improve.

Carers and Co-Production: Enabling Expertise through Experience?

Purpose To provide a brief overview of the literature to date which has focussed on co-production within mental healthcare in the UK, including service user and carer involvement and collaboration. Design The paper presents key outcomes from studies which have explicitly attempted to introduce co-produced care in addition to specific tools designed to encourage co-production within mental health services. The paper debates the cultural and ideological shift required for staff, service users and family members to undertake co-produced care and outlines challenges ahead with respect to service redesign and new roles in practice. Findings Informal carers (family and friends) are recognised as a fundamental resource for mental health service provision, as well as a rich source of expertise through experience, yet their views are rarely solicited by mental health professionals or taken into account during decision-making. This issue is considered alongside new policy recommendations which advocate the development of co-produced services and care. Research Limitations Despite the launch of a number of initiatives designed to build on peer experience and support, there has been a lack of attention on the differing dynamic which remains evident between healthcare professionals and people using mental health services. Co-production sheds a light on the blurring of roles, trust and shared endeavour (Slay and Stephens, 2013) but, despite an increase in peer recovery workers across England, there has been little research or service development designed to focus explicitly on this particular dynamic. Practical Implications Despite these challenges, coproduction in mental healthcare represents a real opportunity for the skills and experience of family members to be taken into account and could provide a mechanism to achieve the ‘triangle of care’ with input, recognition and respect given to all (service users, carers, professionals) whose lives are touched by mental distress. However, lack of attention in relation to carer perspectives, expertise and potential involvement could undermine the potential for coproduction to act as a vehicle to encourage person-centred care which accounts for social in addition to clinical factors. Social Implications The families of people with severe and enduring mental illness (SMI) assume a major responsibility for the provision of care and support to their relatives over extended time periods (Rose et al, 2004). Involving carers in discussions about care planning could help to provide a wider picture about the impact of mental health difficulties, beyond symptom reduction. The ‘co-production of care’ reflects a desire to work meaningfully and fully with service users and carers. However, to date, little work has been undertaken in order to coproduce services through the ‘triangle of care’ with carers bringing their own skills, resources and expertise. Originality/Value This paper debates the current involvement of carers across mental healthcare and debates whether co-production could be a vehicle to utilise carer expertise, enhance quality and satisfaction with mental healthcare. The critique of current work highlights the danger of increasing expectations on service providers to undertake work aligned to key initiatives (shared decision-making, person-centred care, co-production), that have common underpinning principles but, in the absence of practical guidance, could be addressed in isolation rather than as an integrated approach within a ‘triangle of care’.