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

6. Evidence, opposition and non-regulatory approaches

Multiple themes emerged from open-text comments highlighting concerns which are covered in this chapter. Respondents who left comments requested more evidence, argued that there is no need for legislation, or expressed opposition to the proposals.

6.1 More evidence is required

The most prevalent overarching theme across the consultation was that many respondents felt that the evidence base for the proposals was insufficient. Around half of these comments were made by organisations, including the Commission on School Reform, My Rights, My Say, NASUWT, some local authorities and CoSLA. Some felt that further explanation of how the proposals would work in practice would be necessary before they could come to a view on whether the proposals should go ahead.

Specific aspects where respondents felt further information was required included:

• Whether the requirement is to ensure children receive the minimum hours or whether it is to provide or make available hours.
• How exemptions would work in practice.
• How adapted timetables would fit into the requirement.
• What measures would be in place to overcome implementation challenges such as financing and staffing as described above.
• Whether schools or parents would be prosecuted if hours fell below the prescribed minimum.
• How learning hours would be defined (see Chapter 6).

More generally, respondents felt insufficient justification for the proposals was given in the consultation paper. There were requests for more information about the anticipated outcomes for pupils and for why the proposed number of hours had been chosen.

6.2 Legislation is not required

Many respondents questioned the need for Scottish Ministers to prescribe the number of learning hours. Many did not see the value of introducing a minimum or wondered what problem it was designed to solve. St Luke’s Barrhead Parent Council argued that rather than solve a problem, it could increase litigation, for instance, if parents challenge the number of learning hours a child receives, perhaps due to strikes or exclusion.

In particular, it was argued that the suggested minimums for primary and secondary schools were already prevalent across Scotland or that the existing policy framework was adequate. Respondents argued that existing policies mean that learning hours should not be considered in isolation but rather as part of a wider suite of educational objectives led by teachers.

“It would appear, therefore, that in providing an ‘adequate and efficient school education’ and prescribing the ‘hours of school education’, the availability of those hours should be set in the context of curriculum design, delivery, supervision and oversight from a GTCS [General Teaching Council for Scotland] registered teacher.” – EIS

In response to Q6: other considerations, several respondents – all individuals - argued that the proposals were not required, with some describing them as "a waste of time’. Some expressed concerns that central government was imposing or interfering unnecessarily with educational delivery. Others felt there was no problem to solve and that existing measures were satisfactory or that other issues were more pressing.

“I see this as a pointless exercise in bureaucracy. There are already legal protections in place.” - Teacher

6.3 General opposition

Many respondents made negative comments about the proposals in their responses to Q6: Other considerations. Views ranged from those who disagreed with the proposal to those who perceived ulterior motives for introducing the policy. These included trying to maximise the number of hours from teachers, responding to industrial action, or putting a ‘sticking plaster’ on wider social issues.

6.4 Guidance and non-regulatory approaches

A few respondents indicated the issue could be dealt with via guidance rather than primary legislation. Midlothian Secondary Head Teachers preferred this approach, arguing it could enable flexibility to reflect local contexts, including the senior phase.

“Any guidance also needs to reflect learners’ needs and address resourcing equity and challenges that schools and local authorities face, and are likely to for some time.” – Midlothian Secondary Head Teachers

Others highlighted that more guidance would be required to put the proposals into practice. For instance, multiple factors could impact pupils receiving learning hours, and therefore a distinction must be made between the learning hours made available and those received.

Points raised about guidance for learners with additional support needs have been included in Chapter 8.