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

5. Logistical and practical considerations

Across the consultation, respondents highlighted several themes which they felt should be considered before, or if, the proposals are taken forward. These included calls to keep decisions about education at a local level, financial and staffing challenges, how Scotland can learn from other education systems and calls to prioritise other issues.

5.1 Maintain local decision-making

In contrast to calls for consistency and equity of provision reported on earlier, a key overarching theme was that many respondents felt decisions about learning hours should remain within the control of local authorities and schools. This issue was raised by respondents across all questions, particularly Q1, Q5 and Q6. The need to carefully balance a range of provisions based on local needs and manage competing financial pressures was felt better left to local authorities to manage. Increasing spending on additional support needs and recruitment and retention issues were commonly mentioned as factors that constrained some areas' ability to introduce a minimum number of learning hours.

COSLA, the representative body for Scotland’s 32 local authorities, noted in their response, “We have serious concerns about the approach taken by the Scottish Government in their approach to introducing legislation to prescribe minimum learning hours”. While they welcomed the then First Minister’s intention to ‘reset’ the relationship between local authorities and the Scottish Government they felt the learning hours proposals do not support that aim and ask for the proposals to be reviewed in the light of the New Deal for Local Government.

West Lothian Council argued that a reduction in local government autonomy “represents a diminution of both local democratic accountability and community empowerment and is contrary to the aims of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.”

“Following this consultation, there will be a need for close engagement between the Scottish Government and CoSLA, given the spirit of the proposed partnership agreement, before any proposed legislation is introduced. Through the education reform agenda there are opportunities to create this focus. By co-convening the national discussion for the future of Scottish Education, CoSLA and the Scottish Government can establish a shared vision of how education in Scotland should look in the future.” – CoSLA

5.2 Financial and staffing implications

Many respondents highlighted a range of issues to be considered if a minimum number of learning hours is introduced. This was an overarching theme raised by respondents throughout the consultation, particularly in Q1, Q3 and Q6.

A key consideration was that resources would need to be found to ensure ongoing compliance with any prescribed minimum level of learning hours. It was also felt there

would be increased pressure on school staff to deliver the policy and it would require administrative systems to monitor delivery or could impact other aspects of provision such as school lets and transport.

“There are a number of additional operational considerations that would be required to be addressed to increase provision. This would include variations to school transport arrangements, changes to cleansing and janitorial support which may require additional staff, changes to contracted hours or changes to commissioned services and possible impacts on PPP contracts and other letting arrangements.” – CoSLA

Respondents highlighted that implementing the policy could initially be more challenging for local authorities currently providing less than the proposed minimum. For instance, East Lothian Council currently offer 22.5 hours for P1 and P2s, but estimated recruitment of an additional 11.1 full-time teaching staff would be required, at a cost of around £713,000 per annum, to implement the proposal.

However, significant negative impacts were envisaged even where the existing provision meets the proposed minimum number of learning hours. For instance, several respondents mentioned the Scottish Government’s commitment to reducing teaching contact hours to 21 per week in this parliamentary term. Introducing a prescribed minimum, in the context of ongoing recruitment and retention challenges, was felt to undermine that policy intention as it could result in greater class contact being required by teachers whilst reducing local flexibility to make variations.

“Teaching hours are dependent not only on nationally determined teacher contracts, which specify maximum weekly class-contact hours for every teacher, but also crucially, on the staffing formulae used by local authorities to allocate teachers to their schools and on the promoted post structure in each school. Each local authority will have its own LNCT agreement on management time for promoted members of staff in its schools which could have a major (and variable) impact on schools’ capacities to provide learning hours. Furthermore the staffing formulae, used by local authorities, which are not made public, can differ very significantly from authority to authority as can the number of promoted posts even in schools with identical rolls. These factors clearly indicate where significant variations in learning hours could appear, and where clarity and transparency about implementation are therefore required.” – Commission on School Reform

Many others argued that school staff, particularly teachers, would be placed under more pressure as a result of any prescribed minimum, in an already rapidly changing landscape:

“There are already a lot of changes proposed within the system and a likely dim view will be taken by teaching staff to further shifting sands when they are still awaiting their promised reduction in class contact time.’ – NASUWT

As education budgets and efficiency savings are part of complex local finance systems, with staffing costs accounting for a significant proportion of this, CoSLA and a few local authorities argued that the proposals could impact an ability to meet wider children and family outcomes or delivery of other vital services.

“When linked to the restrictions around teacher numbers, pupil support post numbers and probationer places, the impact for the directorate, and the other posts/staff groups, as well as wider Council Services could be significant. Achieving the best possible outcomes for children and young people and tackling the poverty-related attainment gap requires support from a range of services, including social work, Fife College, health, early years, police, commissioned third sector support services, school transport, breakfast and after school clubs etc. This support risks being weakened by the introduction of these regulations, as in the current financial circumstances implementation may result in disproportionate cuts falling upon these other vital services. This may have the effect of adding further pressure to the teaching and school workforce if these vital support services are reduced.” – Fife Council

“Restricting the ability of the Council to reduce provision will result in the Council being unable to deliver against all statutory duties and have significant implications on the range of other services that support children and families. Education currently accounts for around 34% of all Council spend. Spending on education and social care (children and adults) now equates to 65% of all Council spend. Any move to legislate minimum learning hours provision would require a review of current national funding arrangements to ensure that Councils can fully meet legislative requirements.” – Aberdeen City Council

In addition to the overarching theme described under Q1 of the need to address staffing and funding issues, several respondents commented specifically on the proposal's potential impact on teachers in response to Q6: other considerations. There were calls to ensure that teachers' terms and conditions were not adversely affected, with concerns expressed about potential reductions in hours or salary, increased contact time or increased administration.

“When students are not in school full time, for whatever reason, teachers are being asked to prepare and provide additional resources for these students. No time is given for this… Also, it is unlikely that the missing student would be able to actually do the work without the teaching. Teachers are NOT online tutors. Schools are NOT akin to the open university. Should it be deemed not beneficial for a student to attend school full time, then the local authorities need to provide education otherwise.” – Teacher

“Pupils do not need to be in front of a GTCS registered teacher for a set number of minutes each week, within a school setting, covering a traditional syllabus. Pupils do need to be in front of GTCS registered teachers to provide them with a high-quality learning experience across the range of GTCS registered subjects of interest or use to the pupils engaging in such subjects. Pupils should be entitled to access learning experiences best serving their career journey, whether in a traditional school setting, online or through a variety of experiences in and out of school, and provided by schools, employers or other agencies. Such experiences should be delivered by anyone qualified to do so (GTCS registered teacher for History; college tutor for Hairdressing as examples).” - Building on Collaboration, Supporting Headteachers (BOCSH)

“The success of future education reform and the workforce’s capacity to develop and sustain relationships with children and young people depends upon the emotional wellbeing of the staff who will be responsible for implementing change.” – Centre for Excellent for Children’s Care and Protection (CELCIS)

Others made broader points about the teaching profession. Factors that could negatively impact the ability of local authorities to deliver minimum learning hours as set out in the proposals included: teacher recruitment and retention issues; change and pressures already faced by teachers; and the commitment to reducing teacher class contact time.

5.3 Comparisons with other countries

Throughout the consultation, particularly Q1 to Q3, a further overarching theme was that respondents highlighted comparisons with other countries or suggested exploring other successful learning models. It was often noted that Scotland is already above the average number of learning hours across the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development) countries, with little evidence presented as to why that was the case; others explicitly called for Scotland to be more in line with this average. Some, for instance, highlighted better attainment rates achieved by other countries, particularly Finland, despite delivering fewer learning hours. West Lothian Council discussed the benefits of breaks for pupils as well as the potential for teacher collaboration during those times, citing studies conducted in Finland and the United States. Some called for greater investigation into how other countries achieved higher attainment rates.

“More hours doesn’t necessarily mean better grades. Look at other countries and their results.” – Parent

The NASUWT, however, cautioned against wholescale adoption of approaches successful elsewhere, instead preferring a co-produced model involving stakeholders taking local factors into account. CELCIS similarly highlighted that the OECD recommends any comparisons consider historical, systemic and cultural differences. CELCIS stated that there is little consensus about the relationship between time spent in school and later educational outcomes, based on a review of largely international studies. At best, they identified a small positive relationship between more hours; at worst, there was no difference or negative impacts. The quality of teaching was identified as a key determinant of outcomes, and some researchers in the studies reviewed felt this should be prioritised.

“There is limited evidence available on the relationship between the quantity of instructional time and outcomes across educational phases and the evidence varies in scale, quality, and applicability.” – CELCIS

Conversely, others felt increasing learning hours would help raise attainment to become more in line with other countries. A few called for alignment with proposals by the Department for Education for schools in England to provide a 32.5 hours (including breaks) minimum core school week^[1].

5.4 Prioritise other issues

Many respondents in Q1 and Q6 felt that other priorities in education should be addressed rather than progressing these proposals. Issues respondents wished to be addressed included more funding for additional support needs provision, investing in teaching and non-teaching staff and improving their working conditions, smaller class sizes and greater support agency input.

Some called for wholescale educational reform or argued the proposals needed to recognise other educational developments currently taking place.

“The interim report from Professor Hayward’s independent review of qualifications and assessment set out the potential for a significantly different approach to the delivery of national qualifications, including a new way of gathering evidence, reflects broader areas of Curriculum for Excellence and embeds interdisciplinary learning to reflect more personalised pathways. This would require some significant changes to the way that education is delivered in schools, and it is not clear that prescribing minimum learning hours (particularly a very narrow definition of learning hours) would enable this.” - COSLA

5.5 Impact on working parents

Another overarching theme, mentioned by several in Q1 and also at Q2 and Q6 was about minimum learning hours and working parents. These comments largely centred on the need to align school hours more closely to the working week to support working parents or carers, and that any reduction in hours could negatively impact their ability to work. Should a higher minimum be introduced, it was suggested that wrap-around supports did not have to be educational in nature.

“One option which could be considered is an entitlement of 30 hours per week which could be constructed of 25 hours learning hours and incorporate 5 hours wraparound care.” – Perth and Kinross Council

“I think high school kids should be in school from 9.00 to 4pm. This would give working parents far more options to enhance their careers. It would also allow the high school kids to have more time to work on their subjects, maybe give them more choices, maybe get them fitter and healthier with more PE or wellbeing classes.” - Parent

However, a few cautioned against perceiving education as a childcare facility, preferring a focus on the quality of delivery.

5.6 Further consultation is necessary

The need to develop proposals in conjunction with stakeholders was mentioned by several respondents in responses to Q6. In particular, parents, school staff, trade unions and local authorities were considered necessary to consult with. It was felt these stakeholders were best placed to advise on current experiences of educational provision, including parents' views on the impact on childcare. One felt the consultation had been low-key and was unaware of any accessibility measures taken to facilitate participation. Another called for a full Equality Impact Assessment and Children’s Rights Impact Assessment to be conducted.

5.7 Other comments

A range of other views were expressed by some respondents when asked about other considerations in Q6. These typically focused on other aspects of education policy beyond learning hours, including:

• The need to include a wider range of extra-curricular activities.
• Calls for the age at which formal schooling starts to be increased.
• A desire for consistency of education provision across Scotland.
• The need to improve discipline in schools.

A few also:

• Called for wider curriculum reform.
• Suggested there should be an increase in the age children start school.
• Expressed a belief that focusing on learning hours offered opportunities, for instance, through greater teacher collaboration during half-days.