Teacher demoralization and teacher burnout: why the distinction matters by Doris Santoro
Which are you: burnt-out or demoralized? What’s the difference? In my American Journal of Education article Good Teaching in Difficult Times: Demoralization in the Pursuit of Good Work*, I render a distinction between the concepts of teacher burnout and teacher demoralization. Why aren’t these fine-grained and esoteric musings of a philosopher of education? I believe the answer lies in the fact that these characterizations of teachers matter. They matter in terms of what we presume the problem of teachers to be and how we then go about addressing it. Burnout, I argue, rests on a highly personal psychological characterization of teachers and their challenges where demoralization hinges on how the work of teaching itself has changed. Burnout suggests remedies that lie in treating the individual teacher while demoralization calls for an assessment of how good work can or cannot be realized in the profession. Demoralization demands a collective and structural response rather than an individual one.
I make a distinction between demoralization and burnout primarily in terms of cause. The effects – apathy, bitterness, depression, exhaustion, isolation – may, in fact, look remarkably similar. Burnout is studied most frequently by psychologists who examine how an individual’s personality, physical and mental health, and coping strategies help to manage stress. Burnout tends to be characterized as a natural by-product of teaching in demanding schools and leaves the problem of burnout as an issue of teacher personality and/or naiveté. Burnout is characterized as a failure of individual teachers to conserve their personal store of resources.
In demoralization, the resources – what I term the moral rewards of teaching, are embedded in the work itself. Demoralization, as I describe it, occurs when the job changes to such a degree that what teachers previously found good about their work is no longer available. Moral rewards are what bring many of us to teaching: finding ways to connect meaningfully with students, designing lessons that address students’ needs, using our talents to improve the lives of others. When teachers feel they no longer find these kinds of moral rewards in their work, I call that demoralization. It is more than just sadness or a sense of defeat, but a sense that the moral dimension of the work is foreclosed due to conditions that affect their teaching directly.
To avoid burnout, self-care and good boundaries are essential. However, I would like to see teachers resist the label of burnout if what they are really experiencing is demoralization due to systemic changes in the work.
Certainly, there are teachers who experience burnout. They may not be fit for work that exposes the self to scrutiny each and every minute of the day. They may subscribe to a misguided hero-mentality that positions them as the saviors of students and fail to preserve their own well-being. Working for years in a toxic and unsupportive environment can lead to the erosion of personal resources in even the most hardy teacher. These are real conditions, and I do not want to dismiss them.
However, demoralization focuses on how we structure the work of teaching for teachers to find good within it. For instance, many teachers reap moral rewards when they develop responsive lessons that connect subject matter with their students. In this case the moral rewards may be attending to students’ academic, psychological and social needs or drawing on their knowledge of a subject to make it come alive for students. When that source of moral reward (e.g., designing lessons) is supplanted with, say, scripted curriculum, teachers lose access to a vehicle to moral rewards. Teachers may feel guilty, depressed, and exhausted. This is not burnout, a failure to conserve personal resources, but an inability to access the good in their work due to the way the work is structured.
To avoid burnout, self-care and good boundaries are essential. However, I would like to see teachers resist the label of burnout if what they are really experiencing is demoralization due to systemic changes in the work. Demoralization indicates a problem with the profession and practitioners collectively can call attention to the ways in which the work is changing. Demoralization is not a personal problem, so it cannot be avoided individually. Naming and resisting policies that impede doing good work need to be addressed collectively and structurally. There is no shame in demoralization – it is the work that has changed, not the failure of an individual to tough it out. Teachers can ask themselves, colleagues, school leaders, policy makers, parents, whoever will listen: How are we able to access the moral rewards of our work? What do we need to do to “remoralize” our teaching?
* http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662010
Same Dreams, Different Realities: Leveraging Community-Based Participatory Research to Support Newcomers and Their Families
Los Angeles charter schools struggle to lift achievement, by Douglas Lee Lauen
Finally! Someone has written an article about something I have believed for a very long time–and I would contend that incompetent administrators go a long way toward creating teacher demoralization. The next time I hear someone talk about the problems with our schools and mention the role of ineffective administrators will be the first time. Teachers are always the easy punching bag when everyone wants someone to blame, but no one every talks about the lack of quality administrators–and I am here to tell you, after 18 years in 3 different public schools, I have worked for exactly 3 effective administrators–out of about 20. Among other things, the rest of them were trying to avoid anyone noticing anything that might hinder their trip up the administrative ladder, and were therefore not the least bit interested in what might make our schools more effective.
Absolutely! This is one area that people “avoid” talking about, because teachers are “supposed” to be able to “fix” everything!! And the nature of 99.9% of teachers is to believe that we “can” fix everything. Unfortunately, this sets us up to be scapegoats in our profession when truly it is a collective problem, not individual. Teachers should have administration that is supportive (not demeaning) and when/if a teacher is not performing to expectations, they should be asking the question, why? (Not assuming that this individual is incompetent or apathetic.) Perhaps the expectations for the teacher are not clear. Maybe the teacher does not have the appropriate resources for her students’ needs. How about conflicting demands from too many “bosses” (state, county, and school). Or even the simple facts that his/her classroom may be overloaded or improper placement for ESE students. Are these questions asked when teachers are given poor performance evaluations? Do administrators listen when these difficulties are brought to their attention, or do they assume that the teacher is simply not doing his/her job? Yes, there are great new strategies out there that are being taught to teachers and, yes, implemented, but unfortunately, even these “wonderful” strategies (not to mention the teacher) can be undermined by improper teacher support.
I agree with you, Glenda. Administrators often undermine their teachers efforts and incidentally they derail the momentum of our skill and pattern we have set for ourselves and students. This could be due to a power trip they get personal satisfaction from. Or it can be some inappropriate demand that like getting our classes flooded with children who are not suited to the curriculum. As a result, everyone suffers and the teacher bears the burden.
Excellent article that makes a critical distinction between burnout and demoralization. While I agree that ineffective administrators can be a problem, I believe the problem of the demoralization of teachers (and administrators and students)is largely due to something else. My thoughts are expressed in my May blog:“Educators Must Be Prepared to Challenge Politicians’ and Business Leaders’ Education Agenda” http://michaelrconnollyjr.weebly.com/blog.html
Educators (teachers and administrators)tend to be thin skinned and narcissistic. The smallest slight or change can ruin their day. Most demoralization occurs because of change. It might be petty such as changing to a new textbook, room reassignment or tinkering with the extra duty schedule. Some larger changes might be reassignment to a different grade level or to a different school building. The list of changes in schools and school districts is endless. Educators should believe in change and accept it. “Systemic changes in the work” have always been present in schools and always will be. Educators who cannot cope with change might be in the wrong profession.
Dr. Johnson, I respectfully disagree with your simplistic statement. It seems that your are too removed from the classroom to really understand what goes on there. Petty changes such as bell schedules or a new textbook are just that, petty. Extra duty schedules may not be petty, but a real problem. In my 37 years teaching, I have seen many principals play favorites regarding extra duty and assignment of prep periods, with the same teachers getting the easy duties or the best prep times year after year. These things are best left addressed by the union rep, however. The changes that demoralize us are those which take the expertise out of the classroom. Scripted curricula, mandates on the methods you must use to teach, and seemingly random application of “best practices” policies that demand that every child be taught in the same manner without regard to their learning strengths and differences are what demoralize us. Some of those policies we deem as harmful to a child’s academic development but have no say in the adoption of the policies. THAT is demoralizing. Teacher judgment is not considered in designing lessons, adaptations and methods of teaching. We have been told for the past 10 years that we are failing and so anything we say is a moot point. THAT is demoralizing. Change is not necessarily good. And if, with those changes, we are still “failing” that should be an indictment right there.
That’s a pretty shallow statement and I think many teachers will rightly take offense to such a poorly conceived belief of yours. People must hate you.
David,
While I would agree with you that some educators (emphasis on some)are thin-skinned and resistant to change, I believe that they are in the minority. The majority of teachers and administrators embrace change when they believe it is in the best interest of students.It is when they don’t believe that a change that is being imposed on them is good for their students, for the practice of effective teaching, for the community or for the nation’s future that the majority of teachers resist.
After all, have we not discovered with NCLB that not all change is good change, or reasonable change?
The truth is that public education has been subject to more change than any other public (or private)institution in this country in the past century –and that change continues to escalate. Want evidence? Here’s a link to check out: http://www.jamievollmer.com/poster.html
Perhaps my perspective is skewed by the fact that I am at 30 years in education, but I think the distinction is irrelevant.
The job of schools is to do right by kids. The best way to do that is to do right by teachers, as they are the primary force in the education of the citizenry.
Burnout and demoralization are substantively different. On that point, I agree with the author. However, the remedy is the same. Schools need to hire good teachers and then provide them with the support – administrative and professional – that will allow them to do their jobs. What happens now is that teachers, many of them in early stages of development, are burdened with implementing one innovation or another, and before they have a chance to master the skill or fully utilize the resource, the next innovation is foisted upon them. The result is that far too many teachers are competent, but not expert, with the various innovations. Additionally, each additional expectation limits the amount of time and focus that can be dedicated to all of the others.
Then we put plans in place to evaluate teachers on the basis of their facility with these various tools, knowing full well that most will not have had time and experience to master most of them.
This post makes some very good points, but once again, I find myself asking, where is the responsibility and accountability of administrators, building level and higher, in this debacle? I contend that one reason we are bombarded with innovation after innovation is because the people doing the bombarding–administrators–were never really teachers. They don’t get it, and they never will. They weren’t immersed in a classroom long enough to understand the ebb and flow of the educational process, and the need to persevere because when it looks like nothing is happening on the surface, oftentimes that is when the deepest, most meaningful learning is occurring. It’s like a plant that appears to not be growing, but it is using all its energy to develop a root system, and then one day, just sort of takes off. What we are trying to do in classrooms is win a long-term war, mmore or less, while administrators are simply trying to win little battles here and there while they further their careers. I’ve been in a classroom 20 years, and I can count on one hand the number of administrators I’ve worked for and around who were even remotely competent; nice people, almost all of them, but in no way qualified to lead a school. Yet it seems the worst of them were the first to get promoted, and almost every single one of them was a teacher for 3 or fewer years.
WOW! What a great dialogue!! You all make some very good, quality comments! I have enjoyed the identification of the problems we all see throughout the country, but no one identifies solutions for these problems! I just finished my 36th year in education (20 years as a teacher and 16 years as an administrator) with an exclamation mark on my final day with Staff yesterday (June 7). We, as a collective group (just yesterday), decided that we will return in the Fall with one focus, “the student learner!”
We finished our meeting talking about our successes in 2012-13; and brought ideas forth as a group that will help us focus on our students: writing (cross curricular), literacy improvement (cross curricular), Note taking (Cornell Notes – cross curricular), Assemblies (Social, Emotional, Learning), Academic Assemblies (Celebrate Successes) – on and on! The POINT – We all have the proverbial “Skin in the Game!” Keep the common denominator in the center – Student Learning!
We have all contributed to the lack of success: Administrators, Teachers, Students and Parents! Administrators need to be visionaries with one “focus” and not contribute to the “Peter Principle!” Teachers need to realize that “Change is the One Constant in Education.” Students need to be intrinsically motivated. Parents need to stop enabling their students due to “Parental Arrogance!” (My son/daughter is “Gifted and Talented!”) Now, my humble solution!
Universities need to do a better job preparing Administrators for the “Task at hand!” Prepare administrators for the 21st Century “Second Decade!” Teach them how to observe and evaluate staff members – “Hire well, Professionally develop Staff and Evaluate!” Universities need to prepare Teachers of the “21st Century Second Decade,” better than ever! Teach our young teachers how to engage students with “Technology Enhanced Tools” so that they can ENGAGE the young minds!
High School Teachers need to Teach content with Technology Enhance Curricula, so that students can be engaged with tools they use DAILY!! Young people know how to “TEXT,” but they don’t know Technology Etiquette; they don’t know the power of the technology tools. We need to teach them. We need to help parents, parent! Face to face conferences, digital communications: e-mail, texts, text blasts, website communications, etc. More over than ever, it takes all of us, together – to raise a student!
For more – go to our Website: http://www.luhs.k12.wi.us
I think there is a pressing need to take action against both burn out and demoralisation. People in high pressured jobs get supervised and renumerated adequately. We get neither. Effective on going training and support as well as recognition for dedication is absolutely essential if we are to retain quality and effective teachers at the frontline where they are mostly needed. Let’s rethink our approach.
Let’s not forget about the ever present possibility of false accusations from students as well as admins. You work in an environment where no one has your back, unless they want to stab it. The environment has so many variables that are not only damaging to your career, but your future. It’s like walking into quicksand without a rope.