The government has delayed implementation of its expectation that all schools offer a 32.5-hour week by a year. The government announced last year it expected all schools to meet the target by this September. But in in what is for many schools the last week of term, the Department for Education said the deadline had been pushed back to September 2024 “in recognition of the pressures facing schools”. Schools minister Nick Gibb said the expectation was “part of our ambition to give every pupil the opportunity to succeed”. 鈥淲hilst the majority of schools are already delivering this commitment, schools will now have until September 2024 to meet this expectation. We have today published guidance to support them to do this.鈥 ‘A result of their own dithering’ Geoff Barton, general secretary of school leaders’ union ASCL, said ministers “have been forced to introduce this delay as a result of their own dithering, with this guidance publishing a full year later than planned”. “This is yet another example of the lack of respect schools have, sadly, come to expect in the government鈥檚 dealings with them.鈥 According to government survey data published , 52 per cent of primary schools and 62 per cent of secondary schools already run a day of six-and-a-half-hours or more. A further 41 per cent of primary schools and 35 per cent of secondary schools run a day that is between six hours and fifteen minutes and six and a half hours long, meaning they would only need short extensions to comply. Just 8 per cent of primary schools and 5 per cent of secondary schools run a school day of less than six hours and fifteen minutes. James Bowen, assistant general secretary at school leaders鈥 union NAHT, said it was 鈥渦nacceptable that the government left it so late to issue this guidance鈥. 鈥淪chools had been left uncertain whether they needed to implement changes ahead of next term. The policy is a distraction and there is virtually no evidence to suggest adding a small amount of time to the school day will benefit pupils.鈥 The DfE’s guidance, which is non-statutory, said “some schools will already have increased their hours in response to the expectation set in the white paper”. “Any mainstream state-funded school that does not yet meet the minimum expectation of 32.5 hours should be working towards doing so by September 2024 at the latest.” Here’s what we learned from the guidance… 1. Prioritise extra lessons over breaks Schools planning to increase their hours by half an hour or more should 鈥渇irst consider prioritising an increase to lesson time鈥. Those only needing to add a short amount of time 鈥渕ay want to consider incorporating short activities which meet school priorities into their timetable, for example daily reading practice鈥. Any increases to breaks 鈥渟hould be proportionate and bring value to the school week, for example by providing opportunities for sport and other enrichment activities鈥. 2. Make up the time if finishing early All schools should deliver a 鈥渟ubstantive high-quality morning and afternoon session in every school day鈥. Those that want to finish earlier on specific days, for example for 鈥渞eligious observances鈥, should 鈥渙ffer longer hours on the remaining days so that they meet the minimum expectation over the course of the week鈥. Secondary schools 鈥渕ay want to consider consolidating the additional time needed to meet a 32.5 hour week into a block of additional time on one or two days of the week鈥. 3. Expectation must be met within teacher hours cap Teachers鈥 hours are technically capped at 1,265 hours per year, though in reality most teachers work more. The DfE said any additional teacher time needed to deliver a longer school week 鈥渨ill need to be incorporated into a school鈥檚 directed time allocations鈥. 4. Ofsted will expect 鈥榗lear rationale鈥 During Ofsted inspections, where it is 鈥渃lear that increasing the overall time pupils spend in school to at least 32.5 hours per week would improve the quality of education, inspectors will reflect this in their evaluation of the school, and in the inspection report鈥. If a school is not meeting the minimum expectation, and this impacts on the quality of education, inspectors will 鈥渆xpect schools to set out a clear rationale for this and understand what impact it has on the quality of education鈥. They will also 鈥渨ant to understand what plans are in place to meet the minimum expectation鈥. But Ofsted is 鈥渕indful that some schools will be transitioning towards meeting the minimum expectation over the period to September 2024鈥. 5. Schools already meeting expectation urged to do more And schools already meeting the expectation 鈥渕ay wish to consider increasing their school week further to provide additional opportunities for pupils, either as part of the core week or by providing activities that are optional for pupils鈥. 6. Consult councils on transport impact Leaders should also consult 鈥渞elevant local authorities鈥 as early as possible in advance of changes to 鈥渕inimise any unintended consequences or costs for school transport鈥. The DfE acknowledged changes to transport arrangements 鈥渕ay require the local authority to re-negotiate existing contracts with transport operators, or tender for new ones鈥. 7. Staff contracts may need to change Schools also need to 鈥渃onsult and inform staff with adequate notice鈥. This includes 鈥渁ll staff who will be affected by any change, for example sport coaches, wraparound care providers and peripatetic music teachers鈥. Again, the DfE said schools 鈥渕ay need to review and amend the contracts of some staff, especially those paid on an hourly basis鈥.
Mary clark 17 July 2023 School staff always worked for 32.5 hrs per week when I was in Education. I didn’t realise shorter working hours was a “thing” until my son ( a teacher ) dropped it out one day. I was shocked, to tell the truth, 32.5 h s isn’t a long working day.
Sandy Cameron 18 July 2023 “schools already meeting the expectation 鈥渕ay wish to consider increasing their school week further” Yes, why stop at 32.5? Why not have a rolling programme of annual increases until the optimum teaching week is attained? 35? 40? Surely logic tells us that the more time pupils spend in school, they more they achieve, so why bother sending them home at all?? Or, since the guidance is non-statutory, schools could just ignore it, recognising it for the nonsense that it is.