Hampshire County Council Education Policy Review Committee 19 November 2002 Report on the consultations about a six term year Report of the County Education Officer |
Item 2 |
Contact: Bob Lloyd-Jones, ext 6364
1. Summary
1.1. This paper reports on the outcomes of consultations agreed by the Executive Member for Education on 23 May 2002. The consultations were designed to invite views about the six term year recommended by the Local Government Association (LGA) compared with the present organisation of the school year with three terms (six half terms).
1.2. The consultation was targeted on:
_ Hampshire residents
_ schools (staff - both teachers and support staff)
_ parents
_ professional associations representing school staff
_ businesses
_ post-16 colleges
_ borough and district councils
_ other local education authorities.
1.3. Were the six term year to be adopted, it would start in the academic year 2004 to 2005.
1.4. Members are asked to advise the Executive Member for Education which options (Section 6) are to be commended to Cabinet.
2. Background
2.1. The Independent Commission working on behalf of the LGA issued its final recommendations for a six term year in December 2001. This followed consultations with groups such as:
_ LEA members and senior officers
_ headteachers and deputy headteachers
_ teachers' unions and professional associations
_ religious education bodies
_ university and college admissions staff
_ school governor organisations.
On the whole their response was favourable.
2.2. The Independent Commission, through the LGA, is proposing that there be:
_ six terms in an academic year
_ two terms before Christmas, with no term of more than 38 days (7 weeks, 3 days)
_ a two week October break
_ a two week Christmas break
_ four terms after Christmas all limited to a maximum of six weeks
_ a change at Easter where, in the very few years when Easter falls particularly early or late, Good Friday and Easter Monday - still taken as holidays - would fall within term time.
2.3. The LGA is recommending that any adoption of the six term year should first be implemented in the academic year 2004/2005. This would mean that:
_ the two week October holiday would first be introduced in 2004
_ the new spring holiday would be set in April 2005.
2.4. Since making its original recommendations, the LGA has held further consultations with the groups listed in 2.1 and also with ministers and officials at the DfES. Again, the response has been mainly favourable.
2.5. In making its recommendations, and as stated in the latest report dated September 2002 (copies of this report are available in the Members' Room), the Commission has identified a number of objectives associated with introducing a six term year.
· Raising standards and assisting pupils and their teachers through:
(a) The avoidance of stress.
"All those we consulted agreed that excessively long terms induced stress and absences from school among both teachers and pupils. Our proposals for a longer holiday in late October and for ensuring that no term lasts more than around seven weeks are designed to achieve a reduction in stress and are based on the experience of schools which have already adopted a similar pattern."
(b) A better environment for planning and managing the curriculum and assessment.
· Improving the transition between the stages of education.
· Introducing greater standardisation and predictability for parents as well as teachers.
· The introduction of a national `framework' with enough flexibility so that it will not be a `straight jacket'.
3. Hampshire County Council's consultation exercise
3.1. In order to obtain a Hampshire view of the LGA's proposals, the County Council, using a number of methods, invited views, comments and responses by:
(i) issuing some half a million questionnaires to residents in the summer 2002 edition of Hampshire Now, accompanied by an article about the six term year
(ii) distributing approximately 11,000 questionnaires to all those teachers and support staff, employed by the County Council, working in the LEA's schools
(iii) sending invitations to a sample of parents with children at Hampshire schools to take part in focus group meetings (8). The groups were designed to ensure there was a good spread of representation by type of school, geography and socio demographics
(iv) issuing invitations to headteachers and governors to either submit a completed questionnaire or to put their views in writing
(v) conducting in-depth telephone interviews with a cross-section of Hampshire businesses/employers
(vi) including questions to be presented to the Hampshire citizens' panel - Hampshire Listens.
An independent firm of social researchers - Miller Associates - was engaged to collate, analyse and report on the results of the various consultation exercises.
4. The results of the consultation
4.1. The Hampshire household survey: The results of this survey are available in the Members' Room. The summary of the findings is given in Appendix 1.
4.2. The Hampshire schools survey: The results of this survey are available in the Members' Room. The summary of the findings is given in Appendix 2.
4.3. The findings from the focus groups: Parents received no preparation for, nor any detailed information about the purpose of the focus groups other than being told they were to discuss education. In particular, they had no previous notion that the main purpose was to discuss the organisation of the school year. These findings are available in the Members' Room. A summary of the findings is given in Appendix 3.
4.4. Responses from headteachers and governors: Most of these are reflected in the results of the Hampshire schools survey (4.2 above). The summary of the main points expanded upon in letters, is given in Appendix 4.
4.5. Results of telephone interviews with businesses: The results of this survey are available in the Members' Room. A summary of the findings is given in Appendix 5.
4.6. Views from the citizens' panel: The results of this survey by MORI are available in the Members' Room. The summary of the findings is given in Appendix 6.
4.7. Views of the Teachers' Liaison Panel ('TLP' comprises representation of all the professional associations), the National Association of Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants, and Unison: Appendix 7 lists the main points made.
4.8. Views of neighbouring LEAs: Appendix 8 depicts the position currently adopted by neighbouring LEAs.
5. Conclusion
5.1. Overall, respondents to the consultations saw advantages to be gained from moving to a six term year. The extent of agreement or disagreement was varied and focussed upon a number of salient points.
· There was a tendency to agree that the six term year would lead to advantages as far as teaching and learning were concerned. Whilst most staff in schools subscribed to this view, compared with other respondents, school staff tended to disagree that current arrangements for school holidays led to difficulties.
· On balance, the introduction of terms of more equitable length was seen as an advantage, as was the greater standardisation which would be brought about, year on year.
(i) more respondents saw advantages then disadvantages in shortening the summer holiday and introducing a two-week break in October, in order to reduce the impact of a long autumn term. However, the reaction to taking the extra week in October was mixed.
(ii) there was a high level of support for setting the spring holiday so that it would no longer be a moveable feast depending upon the Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
· A high level of concern was expressed, particularly in letters, about the timing of professional (INSET) days. In general, residents and businesses favoured terms being organised for a total of 190 days, with the five teacher professional development days being the responsibility of schools to organise in holidays or twilight sessions. People employed in and by schools - school staff, the Hampshire Inspection and Advisory Service, the Hampshire Music Service and others - favoured terms being organised for 195 days, with schools choosing five professional days from within term time. The main concern was the potential impact on quality. There was a strong view that even were the six term year to be adopted, there should be 195 school days in the calendar so that:
(i) flexibility for setting dates and times for INSET days could be retained;
(ii) opportunities to employ staff training providers would not be reduced;
(iii) teachers and learning support staff development opportunities would not be reduced.
· Another concern expressed by many respondents was that if a change to a six term year were to be made, it should only happen if neighbouring local education authorities agreed to do the same.
6. Three main options are now available to the County Council
6.1. Option one is to keep things as they are and make no changes except the normal year on year adjustments.
6.2. Option two is to keep the existing three terms but to incorporate the advantage rehearsed in the six term year proposal of having a fixed holiday between the spring term (term 2) and the summer term (term 3). This holiday could be set to always be in the first two weeks of April, irrespective of Easter.
· if Easter were early there would be an additional bank holiday weekend outside the April holiday
· if Easter were late, the same principle would apply but the bank holiday weekend would come after the main holiday.
6.3. Option three is to adopt the six term year (incorporating both the fixed spring holiday and the two week holiday in October) if agreement can be reached with the majority of neighbouring LEAs, but choosing one of the two further options:
(i) to set in the calendar, school terms consisting only of the statutory 190 days required for schools to be open for pupils. The five professional training days would be left to schools to organise in school holidays or in twilight time.
(ii) to include the five teacher professional training days in the term time dates on the calendar, set by the LEA. In other words, the LEA would set 195 days of term time, leaving the arrangements for professional days the same as is current practice; the schools identify the dates for the five professional days by setting them during term time.
7. Financial implications
7.1. For schools, irrespective of which model was adopted, there should be no financial implications. For the Hampshire Inspection and Advisory Service (HIAS), and for the Hampshire Music Service, the change to six terms would affect the current business arrangements. For HIAS there is a concern that if schools arrange INSET days in holidays, these days would tend to be the same in many more schools which would restrict the number of days available for supporting training. For the Music Service, the current SLA agreements would be affected. The Property, Building and Regulatory Services might feel some effect as a result of the summer holiday building opportunity being reduced by one week.
Recommendation
That the Executive Member for Education be advised which options are to be commended to the Cabinet.
Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background documents
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.
NB The list excludes:
1. Published works
Guide to the Standard School Year issued by the LGA.
2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.
TITLE FILE
NONE
SC\OCT225LJgg
Appendix 1
The Hampshire household survey
4,595 residents responded to a questionnaire regarding the proposals for a six term academic year. Compared with Hampshire overall, a higher than average proportion of females and of households with children living in them responded to the survey.
The extent of agreement/disagreement with a series of statements was used to assess attitudes towards both the current school year and the proposals for change.
It was apparent from the findings that people felt there were a number of drawbacks to the way in which the current school year was arranged. In particular, it was felt that long terms created tiredness and impeded the ability to learn. Additionally, many people felt that much of the Autumn term was spent reminding children of what they had forgotten over the summer holidays. The majority of respondents did not agree that having always had the current system meant that it was the best.
As far as the proposals for change were concerned, respondents felt very positive about diluting the effects of the long Autumn term and believed that terms of similar length would aid curriculum planning. They did not feel that changing the way in which the school year was arranged would lead to difficulties for businesses or employers. In addition, respondents did not feel that keeping the Easter break within a two week holiday period was a priority.
Overall, respondents were able to see that a number of disadvantages they associated with the current school year could be overcome by the proposed changes.
Appendix 2
The Hampshire schools survey
2,094 school staff responded to a questionnaire regarding the proposals for a six term academic year.
The extent of agreement/disagreement with a series of statements was used to assess attitudes to both the current school year and the proposals for change.
In contrast to residents in general, school staff felt more positively to professional development days occurring within term time and to the current length of the school holidays. However, they disagreed that just because the school year had always been as it is, it must therefore work.
In common with other residents, staff saw a number of disadvantages associated with the current system when it came to teaching and learning. Compared to other residents, however, staff tended to disagree that the current arrangement for school holidays led to difficulties.
Even though staff could see more benefits associated with the current arrangements for the school year than other residents, they tended to agree that the six term year would lead to advantages as far as teaching and learning were concerned.
With respect to the proposed change in arrangements for professional development days, as many staff agreed as disagreed with the proposals.
Staff tended not to feel that the proposed changes would lead to difficulties for businesses and most were unconcerned about how the changes would affect the Easter religious holidays.
In contrast to the general public, school staff tended to feel that a move to new arrangements for the organisation of the school year should coincide with similar changes in other LEAs.
Appendix 3
The findings from the focus groups
The way in which the school year is arranged was not a salient issue in the minds of parents when it came to factors that affected the quality of their children's learning. Nevertheless, they did have very strong opinions about the school year, once it was brought to their attention.
The aspect of the school year on which parents were initially most likely to comment was the length of the summer holidays. It is as well to be aware that the timing of the groups may have dictated this initial response. Many parents, particularly in households where the mothers worked (of which there are many these days), felt the school holidays were too long. Even those parents who felt a long summer holiday was essential for both children and the family agreed that a five week holiday was an acceptable length.
Most parents did not give a great deal of thought to the varying length of school terms (although when asked about it, they did think it affected performance), nor the fact that the pattern changed from one year to the next. Parents knew that Easter changed from one year to the next but had not thought about how this impacted on the school year and most did not know what factors dictated when Easter would fall.
Inset days were a particular frustration to parents, and for many who had children in two or more schools, it meant that as many as an additional 10 days holiday a year needed to be catered for. They wanted to know what Inset days were actually used for, and looked to schools for greater co-ordination.
As far as the proposal for the six term year was concerned, the majority of parents did not see a great deal of difference between this and the existing year. They did not object, on religious grounds, to Easter being taken out of a school holiday period.
Males, however, did raise concerns about how taking the Easter Bank Holidays out of the school holidays might affect how they distributed their holidays throughout the year. They tended to be more resistant to the idea of change, and were also concerned about how any compression of the school summer holidays might affect ability to take annual leaving during this time.
As far as the benefits to teachers and planning were concerned, this was not a strong argument for change for parents. However, they expressed the view that, if teachers felt change would be of benefit to them, they were prepared to give it due consideration.
Whilst a minority of parents responded extremely favourably to the proposal for a six term year, the majority were more lukewarm in their response. In addition to feeling the proposals were not very radical, and wanting to know the views of teachers, they raised a number of other points:
_ They felt that in terms of improving the quality of learning, a change to the school year was relatively low down on their list of priorities.
_ They would like to see some evidence from other countries/counties that a change to the school year would improve learning.
_ They would be reluctant to accept a new system that was not "tried and tested", in case it turned out to be yet another educational experiment that did not work.
If the above concerns were addressed, the majority of parents were prepared to accept change. Indeed, they saw a number of benefits to the proposed school year, most particularly:
_ being able to know from one year to the next when the school holidays were.
_ taking Inset days out of the school year.
_ reducing the length of the summer holidays (although for quite a few, the reduction did not go far enough).
_ the elimination of wide swings in term length.
_ providing more consistency and routine, which was of particular benefit to younger children.
The aspect of the specific proposal that parents were most likely to object to was the two week holiday (instead of one week), during October. Parents felt that this was not a good time to have a two week holiday. They expressed the view that, coming so soon as the long summer holiday, a two week holiday during October was inappropriately timed.
Appendix 4
Responses from headteachers and governors, received by letter
In the 62 letters received from headteachers and governors, a number of particular concerns were identified.
1. The timing of professional (INSET) days: The great majority expressed the view that the five professional development days should be included in the term time allocation of days so that this should be 195 days, not 190 days.
2. The two-week holiday in October: A majority of letters expressed concern about having an extra week's holiday at a time of year when the weather is poor.
3. Co-ordinating any change with other LEAs: A significant number of letters, particularly from governors, emphasised the need to co-ordinate any changes in the school year with neighbouring local education authorities.
4. Proposals should be more radical e.g. a five term year: Many letters, particularly from headteachers, expressed the view that moving to a six term year was simply tinkering with the existing six half terms and that a radical move to a five term year was what would serve the best interests of school pupils.
5. Establishing a spring holiday: Most headteachers, and many governors, strongly supported the idea of setting the spring holiday so that it would be at the same time every year rather than changing as it currently does, according to the time of Easter.
Appendix 5
Results of telephone interviews with businesses, including home-to-school transport and after/pre-school care providers
· On the whole, initial reactions to the proposal of a six term year were very positive. There was an expectation that the proposed changes were going to be more radical, and immediate impressions were that, if the structure were implemented, it would have little impact on the day-to-day running of business.
· Immediate benefits of the proposed six term structure were that:
_ It would allow for more efficient planning on behalf of both employers and employees, which in turn would be advantageous in the scheduling of annual leave.
_ Cover for staff annual leave could be organised well in advance.
_ Consistent school holiday dates would allow employees to arrange childcare in advance.
· There was a mixed reaction to the proposed two-week break in October. The majority believed that, in principle, the idea was good, as it would spread the school holidays more evenly throughout the year. Others, however, were not convinced, and disliked the idea of an extended October break. For a minority, October was claimed to be a busy period, and staff requests for additional time off during this period would be inconvenient.
· The proposed restructuring of the school Easter holiday break was welcomed by food retailers who believed separating the school holiday from the Bank Holiday (a particularly busy time for them) would assist their business. It was felt that fewer staff would request time off over the Bank Holiday, or want to block-book two weeks leave over the Easter Bank Holiday to coincide with their children's school holiday, if the two holidays occurred at different times.
· The minority of companies that currently shut down over the Easter period stated a slight preference for the Easter Bank Holiday to fall within the school holiday period. Nevertheless, they felt confident that they would be able to adapt to fit in to whatever pattern was finally decided on.
· Overall, the proposed reduction in the length of the school summer holiday was greeted with much enthusiasm. It was felt that this proposal would be of benefit not only to employers, as it would reduce the length of time staff would request unpaid leave, but more importantly, it would benefit employees by reducing the length of childcare cover they would have to arrange.
· Those involved in food retailing did express some concern about the proposed reduction in the length of the school summer holiday because it would lead to a further concentration in demand for annual leave. The timing of the interviews immediately after the school summer break may have raised the salience of this.
· All of the interviewees believed that the school summer break needed to be a minimum of five weeks. It was claimed that, if it were reduced further, then it would not be in a company's best interest to employ temporary staff to cover staff annual leave.
· There was a preference for all neighbouring counties to adopt the new pattern of school year at the same time as Hampshire, particularly by those businesses situated close to county borders, and those companies operating nationwide.
· The idea of teacher training days being integrated into the school holidays was welcomed by all businesses, and seen as a clear advantage of the proposed pattern over the current system. It was felt that this would ease the burden for employees of finding childcare at short notice and would result in fewer demands for the odd day's leave.
· Whilst considering whether or not to adopt the six term year pattern, it was felt that the LEA should take the opportunity to consider a number of factors, which included:
_ the provision of extra childcare facilities, particularly for working parents
_ holiday play schemes.
· A notice period of 12 months, prior to adopting a new system, was seen as giving adequate notification.
Appendix 6
Views from the citizens' panel
There is no great top-of-mind dissatisfaction among parents with the present three term academic year in Hampshire. Of those who expressed a view (around two-thirds of parents who responded), those who are satisfied with the three term year outnumbered those dissatisfied by almost four to one (53% satisfied, 13% dissatisfied).
However, this satisfaction is not strongly held by most - just 18% of parents are strongly satisfied with the three term year. Other parents perceive disadvantages, for example, they consider that pupils are tired at the end of a long term which affects their ability to learn (by around four to one of those who expressed a view) and that the current six week summer holiday is too long (almost two to one).
While there is no overall majority support for a six term year, around half of parents support the idea, almost twice as many as oppose it (48% compared with 28%) - broadly similar support to national findings but less than MORI has recently found in a survey of the Suffolk Speaks citizens' panel. This overall support is reinforced by parents' support for issues which are implicit with a six term year - that terms should be roughly the same length (supported by around four to one), that there should be a shorter, earlier summer break (three to one), and that there should be a two week break in October (three to two). There is also overall agreement that a change to six terms would help raise standards (two to one). Such views are by no means overwhelming - around a third of parents did not expressed a view either way.
Appendix 7
Results of meetings with professional associations and unions
A number of concerns were raised.
_ Any decision being made by the County Council as an employer should not adversely affect the conditions of service of employees.
_ Teachers and inspectors expressed concern about professional development days (INSET) being left to schools to organise in school holidays. In the event of change, it was judged that INSET days should be set in term time (195 days) as now.
_ No decision to change should be taken without consideration being given to the actions of neighbouring local education authorities.
_ If the summer holiday were to be reduced, it would reduce the level of flexibility presently enjoyed by employees in terms of organising their main annual holiday. The present six week holiday would be reduced to five.
_ If two weeks (an added week) were to be organised for October, this would be at a time of poor weather compared with the present summer holiday arrangement.
_ Some teacher associations agreed that pupils and teachers are tired towards the end of the long autumn term but that this had more to do with bureaucratic pressures and the pressures of the National Curriculum than the length of school terms.
Support was recorded:
_ SHA (Secondary Headteachers Association) supported the change to a six term year.
_ There was a high level of support from TLP for the idea of setting a spring holiday independent of Easter.
Advice was given that in the event of any change being made, very careful consideration would need to be given to the transition from the 2003/2004 calendar (a three term model) to the 2004/2005 calendar (a possible six term model). Of particular importance would be the need to achieve a summer holiday 'match', in order to bridge any changeover.
Appendix 8
Views of neighbouring LEAs
Bracknell Forest |
Two-stage process starting after the autumn half term. First stage to consult on the principle and then, if agreed, will consult for 2004/2005. |
Dorset |
Not consulting at present - awaiting other authorities' responses. |
Portsmouth |
Waiting to see what other authorities are doing. |
Southampton |
Consulting the same as Hampshire. |
Surrey |
Waiting to see what other authorities are doing. |
West Berkshire |
Consulted 2003/04. Did not take forward. Now waiting to see what other authorities are doing. |
West Sussex |
Could not meet timescale. Waiting to see what other authorities are doing |
Wiltshire |
Consulted for 2003/04 - did not take forward. Now consulting for 2004/05 this term |
Wokingham |
Consulting now. |