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

8. Minimum number of annual learning hours in primary and secondary

This chapter presents the range of views which emerged about the proposed minimum number of 950 learning hours for primary schools and 1045 for secondary schools. This was the focus of Q2 and Q3, but comments about the number of minimum hours were raised throughout the consultation and have been included in the analysis below.

8.1 950 hours in primary schools

Q2 asked respondents: Do you agree that the minimum annual learning hours should be 950 hours for primary schools?

Just under half of respondents provided an open-text comment in response to Q2. A range of views was expressed, with the most prevalent theme being that the minimum number of hours should be higher. Other commonly mentioned themes were that there is no need to legislate, agreement with 950 hours, and that there should be fewer hours.

8.2 Should be more hours

The most prevalent theme was that many respondents, almost all of whom were individuals, felt the minimum number of learning hours in primary schools should be higher. Responses were relatively evenly split between those who specified a higher number of hours and those who did not.

Respondents often made brief comments stating there should be more hours, without elaborating on why. Where reasons were given these included having a more positive impact on wellbeing, reducing the poverty-related attainment gap, mitigating pandemic impacts, the costs of childcare and the need to achieve attainment rates in other countries.

Several respondents expressed a view on the higher number of hours they thought would be appropriate. Some thought that the proposals would be clearer if the minimum number of hours was expressed in weekly or daily hours, rather than as an annual figure which is harder to relate to their everyday experience of schools.

“Not sure what this equates to daily - a better question would have given an example of daily hours.” - Parent

Two respondents felt the hours should be 8am to 6pm, involving core learning hours and wrap-around services. A further two felt primary schools should operate between 9am to 3.30pm, with others suggesting the same start time but a 3pm or 4pm finish instead. Two felt another hour should be added, i.e. six hours a day, whilst another felt another 30 minutes should be added per week. One suggested 1,000-1,100 hours a year. Generally, reasons were not given for these suggestions, though one felt 30 hours a week would get pupils used to adult employment hours, and another felt it would support parents with childcare costs.

“An extra hour at school would allow some time for fun activities and homework without parents having to worry about childcare all the time; it might help save money.” - Parent

A small number argued that the number of hours in primary school should be consistent with funded nursery provision i.e. 1140 hours a year. According to one local authority, aligning preschool and primary school hours could help avoid a sharp drop in childcare options as children start in primary:

“This would negate the current issues experienced by a lot of parents seeking wrap around care and managing employment issues when their child starts school having been in Early Learning Centres for 30 hours per week.” – Perth and Kinross Council

A few respondents, however, felt the minimum hours in primary schools should align with those proposed for secondary schools i.e. 1045 per year. One briefly explained that this would ensure consistency between all school settings.

8.3 No need to legislate a minimum

Many respondents either felt that prescribing a minimum number of learning hours was unnecessary, or that there was no need to legislate further because existing arrangements either worked well or served the same purpose. All organisations who held this view were local authorities or COSLA.

Reasons for this stance included: a belief that the legal requirement to open for 190 days per year is sufficient; that the proposed number of learning hours is already in place in many schools; that Scotland already provides more learning hours than the OECD average; and that insufficient evidence was given to justify the proposals.

“Dumfries and Galloway Council does not agree that minimum learning hours should be set in statute… There is no reference to international evidence that learning hours relate to decreasing the poverty-related attainment gap or increased nurture of children, which are the aspects of ambition made in the introduction to the consultation. – Dumfries and Galloway Council

8.4 Agreement with the proposed annual minimum of 950 hours

The proposal to introduce an annual minimum of 950 hours of learning hours in primary schools met with agreement from many respondents, mostly individuals. Some felt that any further hours would be difficult for children to manage and that it was sufficient time to provide a varied education.

Again, reasons for agreement centred around this already being common practice in primary schools and that it allowed time for learning as well as other activities. Salvesen Mindroom Centre suggested framing legislation in such a way that the policy could be reviewed if it needed to be revised.

"Given that evidence would suggest that there is a widely accepted norm of 25 learning hours per week in the Primary sector, we would agree with setting 950 hours as the minimum annual learning hours which should be available in Primary schools.” - EIS

“This is enough for primary-aged children to get into the habit of going to school, learning and socialising without being overwhelming, based on what I have experienced with my own children.” – Parent

Some respondents caveated their agreement by stating that this should be the absolute minimum number of hours that should be provided, implying that more might be beneficial.

8.5 Structure of school weeks and holidays

One overarching theme mentioned throughout the consultation questions, notably in Q2 and Q3, was comments on how school days, weeks and holidays are organised.

The Monday-to-Friday week and holiday schedule attracted comments from many. Mostly, comments about holidays were that they are too long, particularly during summer, though a few suggested more regular holidays to strengthen learners’ resilience, for example.

Others expressed their preference for a four-day week, arguing this would benefit pupils. Half-day Fridays or asymmetrical weeks attracted mixed feedback. Mostly it was felt that time off on half days was not spent productively by pupils, and they should attend for five full days. Another consequence highlighted was that full days became longer to compensate for the shorter days, and were therefore tiring for pupils. Some, however, felt there were benefits to pupils having Friday afternoons off, such as being more refreshed or having time for other activities. One teacher reported experiencing positive outcomes for children who took part in extra-curricular activities on Friday afternoons and on teachers' health and wellbeing.

“Having an extra day off within the week or long weekend would surely benefit many children and young people. Have a look at the long weekends that are currently provided. Feeling refreshed, stress-free and enjoying that three days away from attending school would most likely raise attainment. If we are having conversations about adults having a 4-day working week, then surely children and young people would benefit from that also.” – Parent

“Pupils in secondary are under significant stress to achieve and I do feel a 4 day week would benefit these children to gain life skills and resilience and focus again on their mental health.” – Parent

“Yes to the extent of assuming a 38 week year, but the spread of the years and holidays needs looking at. The loss of learning momentum during the summer is huge and need to consider the whole structure of the year.” - Parent

8.6 Fewer hours should be required

Many respondents felt the proposed minimum was too high and should be reduced, but did not suggest an alternative. Reasons for this included that:

• Children already spend too long in classrooms, which was considered detrimental to pupil behaviour and wellbeing.
• A lower minimum would aid local flexibility e.g., by adopting core learning hours there would be local autonomy to determine how the remaining hours were spent.
• More free time would be available, e.g., for play and rest and recuperation.
• Fewer hours would concentrate learning, as teaching time would become more focused.
• More teacher non-contact time would be available, as fewer prescribed hours with teachers would enable others to deliver curricular content, freeing teacher time.

Some commented on the length of the school day, believing it is too long and exhausting for children. One respondent, who delivered counselling support in schools, felt children should be asked for their views:

“Too much pressure is on the young people as it is, these are children who should be given a voice and a bit more freedom in making their own choice. I wholeheartedly reckon if you were to offer that choice and be provided with a reason on why, children and young people would agree, they would benefit from less hours.” – Parent

8.7 Younger children should receive fewer learning hours

Children in the early years of primary school should receive fewer learning hours than other pupils, according to several respondents. Young children were felt less able to manage long hours, got tired more quickly, needed time to adjust to school and required more time playing and developing social skills. There was no consensus regarding which particular primary years this should apply to, though suggestions included those under ages 7 or 8, P1s, P1 and P2s, and P1-3s.

8.8 Other comments

Some respondents commented on the curriculum, either that it needed an overhaul or that it was already dense and difficult to address everything within the available hours. A few highlighted the need to prioritise those with additional support needs, with the NASUWT cautioning that increasing rates of pupils identified with additional support needs were causing significant pressure on educational resources to meet demand.

8.9 1045 hours in secondary schools

Q3 asked respondents: Do you agree that the minimum annual learning hours should be 1045 hours for secondary schools?

Around half of respondents answered Q3, with the prevalent theme again being that the minimum number of hours should be higher. However, a range of views was evident, with several respondents supporting the proposal and several others calling for fewer hours.

8.10 Should be more hours

The most common theme in responses to Q3 was that pupils should have longer at secondary school than the proposed minimum number of learning hours. Many respondents, all of whom were individuals, put forward this point of view.

Some did not explain their reasons, though others felt more hours were important to raise attainment and help address poverty, identify vulnerable children, improve access to wellbeing interventions and provide structure. For instance, one suggested that longer hours would give schools more time to teach pupils resilience skills, whilst a parent reflected that their child would have revised better in class rather than at home during study leave. The prevailing feeling was that schools offered a supportive and positive learning environment and that more hours there would be helpful for pupils.

“Need to significantly increase minimum annual learning hours to help pupils bridge that attainment gap and fulfil their potential.” - Parent

While many called for more hours without specifying an amount, several respondents made suggestions. The most common suggestion was to increase it to 1140 hours a year, or 6 hours a day. Other suggestions included a scale between 1050 to 1150, 1650 (7.5 hrs per day, 5 days a week, 44 weeks a year), and another queried whether it should be 1072.5. Two called for 8am to 6pm provision.

“I think secondary pupils could be in school longer than 5.5 hours a day. With more breaks, it could be increased to six. I am a secondary teacher and there simply aren't enough hours in the day to get through all the content, especially in the senior phase. S4-6 pupils could definitely do with being in school a bit longer.” – Teacher

Several respondents, all individuals, expressed a view that schools, and school hours, should better reflect the world of work or university, or at least prepare learners for their future. Crucially, these respondents felt a higher number of minimum hours would help achieve this.

“The years spent at secondary school hopefully prepare pupils for adulthood, and this should be reflected in the time spent each day in the learning environment.” - Parent

Some noted that education should reflect the modern world and could usefully deliver more life skills, practical classes and health promotion activities.

“This should be increased and should include time for physical activities to support overall health and other life skill activities which would help to improve attainment possibilities. It would support them with the opportunities for pupils to reach their full potential and prepare them for future work with more realistic study/work hours.” - Parent

8.11 Structure of school weeks and holidays

The second most commonly mentioned theme in Q3 was comments about the structure of the school day, asymmetric weeks, 4-day weeks and school holidays. Respondents raised the same points as described earlier under the analysis of Q2.

8.12 Agreement with 1045 hours for secondary

Several respondents, including the EIS and East Dunbartonshire Council, agreed with the proposed minimum of 1045 learning hours for secondary schools. Some commented this was already the practice in many areas, whilst singular comments included that older children can manage longer hours, sufficient hours were required to cover the curriculum and that it allowed time to prepare for exams.

“This is the current practice in our local authority. Based on learning loss and the needs of our young people, we would have no plans in reducing the learning hours for this age group.” – East Dunbartonshire Council

8.13 Should be fewer hours

Several individuals called for a lower minimum number of learning hours in secondary schools. Respondents often made brief comments stating there should be fewer hours,

without elaborating on why. However, singular comments suggested this would align with primary schools and that it was too long a week for young people.

However, another theme mentioned by some was that the hours should be reduced to support young people’s mental health. Schools were felt to be sources of pressure for pupils to achieve, or exhausting from spending too long in. There was a call for promoting safe, secure and respected school environments and for adopting a flexible approach whereby pupils would be involved in self-directed learning and able to pursue their interests, relax and socialise.

“Pupils would benefit from working on their own rather than being constantly directed on what to do - they need more independence and time on task. Long days in school are too demanding for pupils. They are children and not adults and should work fewer hours than adults.” – Parent

More generally, several respondents argued for fewer hours in school or shorter school days. Emphasis was given to the benefits of a more informal approach that allowed children more freedom to explore, gave regular breaks or created a strong pastoral ethos.

“During COVID, we noticed that longer breaks and smaller focused learning situations had a positive impact on attainment and individual progress for our learners. By providing more discreet and manageable chunks of learning, there were fewer incidents of behaviours that challenge.” - Harmeny Education Trust

“A happy child or young person who feels refreshed, I reckon, would be far more productive and want to attend school more frequently”. - Parent

8.14 The proposals are unnecessary or too prescriptive

Many felt the proposals were too prescriptive, unnecessary or could have unintended consequences. Prevailing views were that there was no need to prescribe a minimum, that existing arrangements were working well, and that changing them would not be advantageous. For example, four local authorities explicitly stated their disagreement that the minimum number of learning hours should be set in statute.

Some preferred to see a focus on delivering quality learning experiences rather than a prescribed minimum which they perceived would increase a focus on data gathering.

Potential unintended consequences included pupils becoming bored or taking courses just to fill a timetable, the potential for provision to be reduced to the statutory minimum, schools achieving the minimum at the expense of other duties or goals, or teachers moving to schools delivering fewer hours. One felt significant amendment to, or partial repeal, of Section 2ZA of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 would be necessary in time.

“Children are learning all the time, and this should not become a statistic for data based on their attendance at school – the focus should be on the learning content or quality, not quantitative data.” – Parent

“The number of hours is not relevant. It is the quality and appropriateness of these hours. This becomes diminished when the focus is on compliance to a target.” – Parent

In addition to these points, several respondents reiterated the overarching themes of more evidence being required to justify the need to set a minimum number of hours (see Q1) and the need for a clearer definition of learning hours (see Q4).

8.15 Quality teaching takes time

Having sufficient time required to teach the curriculum was an overarching theme mentioned by respondents across the consultation, especially in Q2, Q3 and Q6. However, fewer comments were received for this theme compared to other overarching themes.

There was some disagreement with setting a minimum number of learning hours due to a perception that there was already insufficient time to teach all aspects of the curriculum. More broadly, several respondents reiterated the overarching theme of the quality of learning hours being more important than the number of hours provided.

“There simply aren't enough hours in the day to get through all the content, especially in the senior phase. S4-6 pupils could definitely do with being in school a bit longer.” - Teacher

Others felt educational reform was needed and wanted an overhaul of the curriculum. Calls were made for more resources to meet the diverse, often extensive, range of needs presented by pupils. Rising levels of mental health issues in pupils, increasing numbers of children identified as having additional support needs and the negative impact of poverty as well as societal change, were all cited as issues schools were tackling.

A few made requests for more teachers in schools if the proposals were to be implemented, in line with the overarching theme described in Q1 of considering the resourcing and staffing implications of the proposal.

“In order to deliver this, it is absolutely imperative that money is invested in hiring more teachers…I'm dedicated to my job and feel a duty/expectation to go above and beyond for my pupils - working most of my evenings and weekends - to keep on top of the demands of my job and ensure my pupils have the best possible education, but this comes at the expense of my own health and time. Myself and my colleagues are utterly exhausted, morale is low, and more and more teachers are leaving or signed off due to work-related stress.” - Teacher

8.16 Other considerations for secondary schools

Some highlighted that a later start to the day would be preferable for pupils in secondary schools, arguing this would help their development, for instance, by allowing more sleep and aligning to their biological rhythms. Another felt that too short a time for lunch did not support healthy eating. Two called for later starts with later finishes.

“I can’t speak for all local authorities, but a big issue appears to be the very early start time of high school. Many studies show that due to changes in teenage minds and bodies this is not an optimal time for learning.” – Parent

A small number of respondents commented on the senior phase within secondary schools. Those opposed to the proposal cited a possible reduction in flexibility which they felt would impact pupils in the senior phase.

“Within the senior phase there requires to be flexibility for young people attending school who are beyond the statutory leaving age, in order that learning hours can be tailored to their specific needs and circumstances, for example, allowing them to continue in education, whilst also having the opportunity to work.” – West Lothian Council

One teacher did support the proposal but felt there should be consistency across the country for each of the Broad General Education and Senior Phase stages.