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

2. Introduction

2.1 Background

Traditionally, Scottish primary schools provide around 25 learning hours per week, and Scottish secondary schools around 27.5 hours per week, which respectively equates to 950 and 1045 hours annually. However, while local authorities are legally required to have their schools open for 190 days each year, the number of learning hours that schools must make available is not prescribed in law.

A public consultation ran from 21 March to 13 June 2023 to gather views on whether local authorities and grant aided schools should have a statutory requirement to make available 950 hours of learning hours in their primary schools and 1,045 hours per year in their secondary schools, and in the eight grant aided schools in Scotland. You can view the consultation paper here: Prescribing the minimum annual number of learning hours: consultation - gov.scot (www.gov.scot)

The six consultation questions aimed to gather a broad range of public and stakeholder views, and explored:

• The level of support for setting the minimum learning hours in law
• What the minimum hours should be in primary and secondary schools
• The definition of learning hours
• Possible circumstances for exemptions
• Any other comments on the topic that respondents wished to express.

The findings from the analysis of responses will be used to help Scottish Ministers decide whether to proceed with prescribing learning hours as set out above or to pursue the goal of providing equity in the number of learning hours that should be made available via other non-statutory means.

2.2 Respondent profile

In total, 496 consultation responses were received. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 461 responses to the consultation; the remaining 35 were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped on the nature of their work. Table 1 overleaf shows the number of organisations by group.

2.3 Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, not to quantify how many people held particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

2.4 Quantitative analysis

There were four closed consultation questions, which asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposals in the consultation paper. The results of these questions and our approach to the quantitative analysis are set out in Chapter 2.

2.5 Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

In a small number of instances where alternative format responses contained information that did not align to specific questions, analysts exercised judgement about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

Where appropriate, quotes from a range of participants are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

Reflecting the large number of people who took part, it is not possible to detail every response in this report; a few organisations shared lengthy submissions which reflect their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s website.

2.6 Weight of opinion

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; an insightful view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• The most common / second most common theme; the most frequently identified.
• Many respondents; more than 20, another prevalent theme.
• Several respondents; 10-19, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents; 5-9, another theme.
• A few / a small number of respondents; <5, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.

2.7 Report structure

When reviewing the analysis in this report, we would ask that the reader consider that public consultation of this kind means anyone can express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.

Many themes were raised by respondents repeatedly across the six consultation questions, while other respondents answered a question with comments which were more directly related to another question. All comments have been included in the analysis, and all themes emerging from the analysis are included in this report.

To avoid repetition, however, the report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 presents the results of the quantitative analysis.
• Chapters 3, 4 and 5 each present overarching themes which were evident across the consultation, particularly in responses to Q1: Should the Scottish Government set in law the minimum learning hours pupils in Scotland should receive? and Q6: Are there any further views you wish to share regarding this proposal? These three chapters cover:
• How the proposals contribute to an equitable and high-quality education system.
• Logistical and practical issues to implementing the proposals which would need to be considered.
• The need for more evidence, general opposition to the proposals and suggestions for non-regulator approaches.
• Chapter 6 examines the definition of learning hours, which was the focus of Q4.
• Chapter 7 presents the analysis of responses to Q2 and Q3, which asked for respondents’ views on the proposed minimum of 950 learning hours in primary school and 1045 hours in secondary school.
• Chapter 8 focuses on two further overarching themes – the need for flexibility to meet individual needs, and entitlements.
• Chapter 9 presents the analysis of Q5, which focussed on exemptions.
• Conclusions are set out in Chapter 10.