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

10. Exemptions

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to Q5, which asked respondents: Apart from the exemptions outlined in this paper are there any other circumstances where a variation to the number of learning hours provided may be needed?

Half of respondents answered Q5. Many comments referenced the section in the consultation paper focusing on pupils’ wellbeing. Following this, the next two most prevalent themes were raised by a similar number of respondents. One theme was suggestions for exemptions, and the other was that no further exemptions were needed. A less commonly mentioned theme was a concern that exemptions could be used to avoid providing learning hours.

10.1 Varying learning hours for learners’ wellbeing

The proposals suggest local authorities will have the ability to amend learning hours if a pupil’s wellbeing would be adversely affected by receiving the minimum number of school hours, where it is appropriate and respects their right to an education.

Within this theme, the main concern raised was ensuring the proposals address the needs of pupils with additional support needs. Respondents highlighted the need to protect hours for these children, the need for flexibility in hours to meet their needs and the need to improve provision for these children in schools.

More broadly, respondents highlighted the need for flexibility to meet pupils’ individual needs. This was felt necessary to accommodate those with additional needs who do not have a formal diagnosis, those on adapted timetables, or to allow other forms of learning to be offered, such as sports. In addition, greater flexibility was seen to facilitate the delivery of individualised curriculums.

“Learning hours need to be individually tailored to pupils' careers, and acquiring a variety of qualifications and experiences would require a wide variety of different teachers or tutors in multiple settings - online and in person.” - BOCSH (Building on Collaboration, Supporting Headteachers)

Several argued that the school day was long and that many children and young people do not cope well in a school environment, particularly if pupils have additional support needs. It was felt this could lead to disruptive behaviour, which impacted other pupils’ learning.

There were calls for alternative placements or areas within a school to be made available for pupils considered not to be coping well in mainstream environments, with the implicit view being that local authorities should work to ensure such children were given alternative learning options rather than reducing the number of learning hours.

More broadly, a small number cautioned against using wellbeing as a reason to reduce school learning hours, given the benefits to pupils of being in a school environment.

“Given the increased use of the phrase 'pupil's wellbeing', I think we need to be very careful about using this description as a reason to decrease learning hours. Who might make the assessment of a child's wellbeing being adversely affected? The headteacher, educational psychologist, medical practitioner, parent or child? The danger is that the most vulnerable children might be denied access to the stability of school and support they require.” – Individual

Some called for guidance or more clarity on the process. For instance, one questioned who had responsibility for determining if a pupil’s wellbeing would be adversely affected and felt it should be a multidisciplinary panel. Several asked how the proposals impacted duties in other legislation such as the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.

10.2 Suggested exemptions

Many respondents suggested specific exemptions that could apply, though often these included exemptions and matters beyond the local authorities’ control, as already outlined in the consultation paper. In order of prevalence, suggested exemptions included:

• Situations where staff or resources were low or if safety was compromised, for instance, in small schools with limited staff or for pupils with challenging behaviour.
• Exemptions based on the age of the child or young people, with those in the senior phase or transitioning into P1 specifically mentioned.
• For schools in rural areas, to take account of longer journeys between home and school, e.g., to allow a later start time.
• School closures. Suggestions in addition to those given in the proposals included building works, for instance, during a new build or when moving pupils between schools, additional in-service days and exceptional holidays.
• To allow for extra-curricular activities, including outdoor education, sports days and one-off events.
• To allow for flexible or adapted timetables. Examples included work experience or college placements, residential and community trips, play-based and outdoor activities and self-directed study periods.
• Specific suggestions made by singular respondents included pupils in composite classes and when requested by pupils and/or parents and carers.

Some felt it was impossible to legislate for all unforeseen situations that may result in the loss of learning hours. However, one local authority argued for more guidance.

“Clear guidance would be required around exceptional closures, such as those required to facilitate transition to a new school building or to celebrate a national event.

Consideration would also require to be given to delayed openings or closures due to inclement weather or loss of essential services. – Aberdeen City Council.

A small number argued that schools should make up hours lost due to exemptions or matters beyond their control. One noted that certain countries use ‘snow days’ whereby a day is added at the end of the term if snow results in school closure.

10.3 Further exemptions are unnecessary

Many respondents considered the list of exemptions given in the consultation paper to be appropriate. Comments were generally brief but typically included sentiments such as: ‘seems comprehensive enough’, ‘are sufficient’ and ‘none I can think of’.

10.4 Exemptions should not reduce learning opportunities

Concerns were expressed by many respondents about the potential for exemptions to be used to reduce the learning hours received by some or all pupils. Examples where this might be the case included during periods of industrial action, or those experiencing challenges in mainstream education as outlined above.

Some felt the criteria for exemptions should be clearly defined to avoid ambiguity, for instance, one parent queried whether industrial action and inclement weather were ‘unforeseen circumstances’.

“What outwith the authority control would be considered? Feel this should be clearer as it could be a get-out clause for schools.” - Parent

However, the EIS supported the inclusion of circumstances covered in ‘matters outwith the authority’s control’ (section 6.4 of the consultation paper), noting these reflected the current practical approach prescribed in the Schools General (Scotland) Regulations 1975. It argued that the same flexibility should apply to any minimum hours prescribed.

Several suggested a need to protect pupils’ learning hours to secure solid attainment levels, with a few stating that exemptions should not be allowed or were not required. Respondents highlighted that learning could occur elsewhere, for instance, online, and being unable to attend a classroom did not mean learning hours had to be reduced.

“No other areas should impact on children’s opportunity to learn” – Parent

“I think, since Covid and the switch made to online learning, that it is less likely that a school/Authority closure day would mean no access to education.” – Teacher