Schools - prescribing the minimum annual number of learning hours: consultation analysis

1. Executive Summary

A public consultation to gather views on whether Scottish Ministers should prescribe a minimum number of learning hours for local authority and grant-aided schools in Scotland ran from 21 March to 13 June 2023. You can view the consulation paper here: Prescribing the minimum annual number of learning hours: consultation - gov.scot (www.gov.scot) The proposed minimum annual learning hours is 950 hours in primary schools and 1,045 hours in secondary schools. In total, 496 responses were received - 35 from organisations and the remainder from individuals.

1.1 Quantitative analysis

Three fifths (61%) agreed that the minimum learning hours pupils should receive should be set in law; three in ten (29%) disagreed, and one in ten (10%) were unsure. While two thirds of individuals (64%) supported the proposal, 63% of organisations were opposed, including most (86%) local authorities.

Half of respondents agreed with the proposed minimum number of hours for primary and secondary schools. Among organisations, however, 21% supported the proposed hours for primary schools and 26% for secondary schools.

Two thirds (65%) agreed with the proposed definition of learning hours set out in the consultation paper. However, individuals were far more likely to agree with the definition (68%) than organisations (15%).

1.2 Achieving equitable and high-quality education

Prescribing a minimum number of learning hours was frequently mentioned as a possible way to prevent the erosion of educational standards. It could ensure pupils received a minimum level of learning and be an equitable approach applied consistently across Scotland. Several argued that it could ensure pupils received a quality education by maximising the learning hours they received. Conversely, other respondents argued that the focus should be on the quality rather than the quantity of learning hours.

1.3 Logistical and practical considerations

Respondents frequently argued that decisions about learning hours should remain within the control of local authorities and schools due to the need to carefully balance a range of provisions depending on pupil support requirements and local populations. It was felt that resources would be required to ensure ongoing compliance, and school staff could be placed under greater pressure. Many respondents felt that other priorities in education should be addressed rather than progressing these proposals.

Another recurring theme was the need to align school hours more closely to the working week to support working families and avoid negatively impacting their ability to work.

Given that stakeholders such as parents, school staff, trade unions and local authorities were seen to have the most direct experience of the current system, further consultation with these groups was considered necessary should the proposals proceed.

1.4 Evidence, opposition and non-regulatory approaches

The most prevalent overarching theme across the consultation was that respondents felt the evidence base for the proposals was insufficient. In addition, many did not see the value of introducing a minimum or argued that the existing policy framework was adequate. Others called for more guidance if the proposals are to be implemented.

1.5 Defining learning hours

Respondents repeatedly highlighted that learning can happen in various ways and does not necessarily occur in a classroom led by a teacher. These respondents largely felt the proposed definition was too narrow and should also value wider forms of learning.

However, several respondents, primarily individuals, agreed with the definition.

Respondents sought clarity on what activities would be included in the definition. Ensuring children have protected time with a teacher was raised by several respondents. Suggestions included considering ‘soft’ outcomes such as improved wellbeing, travel time, quality of delivery and partnership delivery arrangements in the senior phase. Some commented on the importance of breaks and lunchtime – as both a learning opportunity for some learners and for rest and socialisation for all.

1.6 Minimum learning hours in primary and secondary

The most prevalent theme regarding the proposed minimum number of learning hours was that they were too low for both primary and secondary school. However, a range of views existed, with many – mostly individuals – agreeing with the proposed minimum and other respondents arguing it was too high.

Reasons for suggesting a higher number included reducing the attainment gap, mitigating pandemic impacts and, in secondary schools, ensuring the full curriculum was taught. Conversely, those seeking fewer hours were more likely to mention adverse wellbeing impacts on learners from long days at school or the need for more flexibility with younger primary school pupils.

1.7 Flexibility, entitlements and exemptions

Another commonly mentioned theme was that minimum learning hours should not be prescribed as learners often require individual arrangements to meet their needs. There was a concern that exemptions from the requirement to provide minimum learning hours could disadvantage pupils with additional support needs, given that some already struggled to obtain the proposed minimum number of learning hours. A minimum number would provide clarity on entitlement and enhance a rights-based approach.

Suggestions for exemptions were made, whilst others felt no further exemptions were needed or argued it was impossible to legislate for all unforeseen situations.

1.8 Conclusions

While between half and two thirds of individuals agreed with the proposals, organisations, and in particular local authorities, were far more likely to disagree. Supporters frequently suggested that a minimum number of learning hours could help to maintain or improve educational standards. However, frequently raised concerns included that it could disadvantage pupils requiring flexibility to meet their needs, that learning hours should remain in the control of schools and local authorities, and that there is limited evidence or justification for why legislation is required.