|
Return
to Agenda
ITEM EX6
EXECUTIVE
– 10 JUNE 2003
SIX TERM
SCHOOL YEAR
Report by
Director for Learning & Culture
Introduction
- The Independent
Commission on the Organisation of the School Year was set up by the
Local Government Association in January 2000 to review the pattern of
the school year. It published its first report "The Rhythms of Schooling
– a proposal to integrate the stages of learning and assessment and
transfer with terms and holidays" in September 2000. The report
provided the basis of an extensive national consultation exercise which
concluded in October 2001 with the publication in December 2001 of a
further report, also entitled "The Rhythms of Schooling". Further
consultations yielded a further report and publication of "Standard
School Year – The Facts" in September 2002.
- At the heart of
the LGA proposals was a recommendation that the academic year in the
UK should be divided into 6 rather than 3 terms. In some ways this proposal
is not as radical as it might seem. The present 3 term structure can
already be seen as a 6 term variant – comprised of 6 ‘half terms’. The
proposal merely gave a greater consistency to the length of the 6 components,
notably by the addition of an October break of between 1 and 2 weeks
and removing Easter as a determining factor in the timing of school
holidays.
- This recommendation
was underpinned by the following more detailed proposals:
- There should
be 2 terms before Christmas with no term of more than 38 days (7 weeks,
3 days).
- An October break
of between 1 and 2 weeks to reduce pupil and teacher stress.
- A Christmas
break which is never less than 2 weeks.
- The 4 terms
after Christmas limited to a maximum of 6 weeks.
- A summer break
which is always more than 5 weeks.
- The April holiday
which will be set irrespective of Easter.
- In January 2002
key stakeholders in Oxfordshire were consulted about the principle of
the six term year, detailed proposals for a six term year for 2004/05
(based on LGA model) and a set of school term and holiday dates based
on the usual pattern of three terms. This report is concerned with the
outcome of the consultation on the six term variant.
- Headteachers and
chairs of governors were consulted separately and were encouraged to
consult school staff, governors and parents. A copy of the consultation
document and questionnaire is in the Members’ Resource Centre. Other
consultees included the relevant diocesan authorities, representatives
of the ethnic minority communities, trade unions, pre-school providers,
centrally employed education staff and Oxfordshire colleges of further
education.
Outcome
of Consultation
- The response to
the consultation was considerable both in terms of number of responses
and, frequently, the vehemence of opinion expressed. This is perhaps
not surprising, it is a matter on which almost everyone has a view and
the outcome of which will materially affect, at the very least, all
those who work in our schools or whose children attend them.
- The majority of
responses were received from headteachers (as individuals, or on behalf
of staff, governors and/or parents), governing bodies, individual governors
and individual parents. The majority of respondents completed the questionnaire.
Many respondents took the opportunity to make additional points; others
chose not to complete the questionnaire but to write instead; and some
schools produced their own questionnaire for parents to complete. The
wide range of forms of response, coupled with the difficulty of knowing
precisely how to weight individual responses (how much more weighting
should be given to a Headteacher speaking on behalf of all parents and
to an individual parent for example?) makes a very scientific analysis
of all the responses difficult. Having said that some very clear trends
have emerged and these are discussed below.
- Responses to the
questionnaire have been assessed and the results are shown in the Annexes.
The overall response for each question (expressed in percentage terms)
is given in graphical terms at Annex 1 (download
as .doc file).. More detailed analysis, by
category of respondent, is given in Annex
2. The following comments summarise the overall
position (percentages rounded to nearest whole number) and, where relevant,
any significant variances by type of respondent. (Table - download
as .doc file)
Q1.
In your view would a six term year help to raise standards? While
there was a majority view that it would (44%), a very significant number
of respondents (31%) acknowledged that they didn’t know.
Q2.
Is it desirable to have six terms of more even length rather than three
of uneven length? The response to this question provided the greatest
majority view overall (72% agreed, 13% didn’t).
Q3.
Would you be happy for the school year to start in August if it provided
educational advantages? Overall a majority agreed (62% with 24%
disagreeing). However a majority of central education staff (44%) disagreed
while 40% agreed and school staff were more or less evenly divided (29%
and 26% respectively).
Q4.
Would a break in October of longer than 1 week (up to 2 weeks) be beneficial
to teachers and pupils (by reducing stress and absence)? A majority
agreed (63% with 17% disagreeing) while responding secondary and special
schools were unanimous in their agreement.
Q5.
Should terms 3, 4, 5 and 6 be of equal length and not dependant on date
of Easter (assuming Good Friday and Easter Monday remain as Bank Holidays)?
The majority agreed (69% with 16% disagreeing) while responding
secondary and special schools were unanimous in their agreement. This
is discussed in more detail below.
Q6.
Should a change be made in Oxfordshire only if a similar change is made
in neighbouring authorities? This question produced the ‘closest
run’ response with 41% agreeing and 41% disagreeing. This is discussed
in more detail below.
Q7.
Irrespective of your views about a six term year, if all neighbouring
authorities changed to a six term year, should Oxfordshire change also?
A majority agreed (66% with 19% disagreeing).
Q8.
Is a summer holiday of between 5 and 6 weeks too long, too short or
adequate? The majority (56%) thought it adequate.
Q9.
Do you agree, broadly, with the LGA’s proposals for ‘flexibility’ days?
The majority (73%) didn’t respond but this is tangential to the fundamental
issue of a six term year. This majority is accounted for almost exclusively
by individual parental response, the majority of other respondents did
agree with the LGA’s proposals.
Q10.
Do you agree with the Commission’s proposals for 2004/05? The majority
(72%) did not respond to this question. Again, this majority is accounted
for almost exclusively by individual parental response. The majority
of other respondents supported the Commission’s proposals but that represented
only 13% of the respondents with 7% disagreeing and 8% not knowing.
Major
Issues to Emerge
- Bias A
number of respondents argued that the questionnaire was biased in favour
of the six term year. With the benefit of hindsight it is accepted that
the questionnaire was not a model of best practice but the intention
of inviting all views and using the outcome of the consultation as the
key determinant in deciding whether or not to proceed with a six term
year has not been compromised. Consultees have been free to express
their opposition to both the principle and the particular and these
views have been taken into account.
- Easter
Given the widely fluctuating time of Easter from year to year the only
way to secure 6 terms of an even length is to separate the Easter festival
from the school holiday. This would, of course, not affect the continuance
of Good Friday and Easter Monday as bank holidays. In some years Easter
would happen to fall within the school holiday, in others it would not.
While the majority of respondents supported this aspect of the proposals
(see question 5 above) the degree of opposition in terms of strength
of feeling was greater than for any other. Some respondents objected
to what they saw as a dilution of the value attached to the most important
festival in the Christian calendar. Some of these respondents and many
others (who expressed no opinion about the significance of Easter in
the Christian calendar) also pointed out that the gap between the school
holiday and the Easter bank holidays would, on occasions, be a potential
source of significant levels of unauthorised (and authorised) absence.
The proposed dates for 2004/05 are a case in point. Schools would return
on Tuesday 29 March 2005 (after Easter Monday) only to start a two week
holiday on 4 April 2005.
- Two week break
in October The majority of respondents agreed that a break of more
than one week and up to two would contribute to a reduction of stress
and absence of staff and pupils. However a significant number of respondents
noted that the LGA proposed dates for 2004/05 in which the October break
was only one week and two days was insufficiently different to be significant.
A number of respondents suggested that a two week break in October would
not be helpful as it is not, generally, a good time of year for family
holidays in the UK because of weather/light.
- Partial weeks
Many correspondents noted that holidays which only occupied part
of a week (eg one week and two days as mentioned above) offered more
potential for unauthorised (and authorised) pupil absence. A number
of respondents also made the point that partial weeks could adversely
affect delivery of the curriculum.
- Not radical
enough A number of respondents noted that the particular LGA proposals
for 2004/05 were not sufficiently radical to reap the potential benefits
of a six term year (notably the lack of sufficiently even term lengths).
- Five term year
A few respondents believed that a five term model would be preferable.
This option had been explored in Oxfordshire by a member/officer working
group which culminated in a decision by the Education Committee in March
2001 not to proceed with such a model in Oxfordshire in the absence
of sufficient support from within the County at that time; the fact
that our geographical neighbours were not intending to introduce such
a model; and the (then) imminent proposal by the LGA to consult nationally
on the six term option.
- Neighbouring
authorities Responses to the questionnaire and commentaries make
great play of the position of our geographical neighbours. The questionnaire
reveals that respondents were more or less evenly divided about the
wisdom of taking account of the choices of our neighbours (see question
6 above). It may be that those who registered this as an important matter
are those living and working around the edge of the County for whom
it would be more likely to be an issue. It is certainly the case that
for families and couples with children, spouses, partners studying or
working across a county boundary a different system of school term and
holiday dates would have the potential to make life very difficult.
It is also clear that the majority of respondents would wish to ‘follow
suit’ if our neighbours had led the way (see question 7 above). A number
of correspondents said that such a scheme should be introduced nationally.
- The position of
our neighbours at the time of writing is as follows:
Buckinghamshire.
Six year model rejected for 2004/05.
Wiltshire.
Partial six term variant (keeps Easter within school holiday) agreed
for 2004/05.
Northamptonshire.
Agreed LGA six term year in principle with a view to implementation
in 2005/06 if adopted nationally.
Reading.
No plans for a six term year in 2004/05. View that there should
be consistency across LEA boundaries.
Warwickshire.
Decision yet to be taken "No enthusiasm here for the six
term year" "… will depend on the extent to which our nine neighbouring
LEAs introduce it".
Gloucestershire. Six term model for 2004/05 but Spring holiday
to incorporate Easter weekend.
Latest
news from the LGA
- On 7 May 2003
the LGA listed those authorities known to have taken decisions either
in principle or in full, to implement the standard school year proposals.
The authorities listed are: Birmingham, Derbyshire, Gloucestershire
(partial), Hampshire, Isle of Wight (partial), Lincolnshire, Norfolk,
Northamptonshire, North East Lincolnshire, Southampton, Thurrock, Corporation
of London, and the London Boroughs of Camden, Croydon, Enfield, Hounslow,
Sutton, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest.
Conclusion
- There is evident
support in Oxfordshire for the principles of and some of the advantages
which would flow from the introduction of a six term year, nevertheless
there are, also, significant reservations about some aspects of the
principle. There is limited support for the particular six term year
proposals for 2004/05 which have been the subject of consultation.
- The position of
our geographical neighbours is still far from certain. This is not perhaps
surprising as the six term option does not (yet at least) seem to have
taken the rest of England and Wales by storm. It may be prudent therefore
not to introduce a six term year in Oxfordshire in 2004/05 but, rather,
to monitor the position of our neighbours and in the rest of England
and Wales with a view to revisiting the matter early in 2004.
- Given the significance
of our geographical neighbours’ stance on this it may be helpful to
set up a temporary group involving officers of all authorities to discuss
the potential for a unified local approach.
RECOMMENDATION
- The Executive
is RECOMMENDED:
- not
to introduce a six term year in Oxfordshire for the academic
year 2004/05;
- to
ask officers to monitor the position taken by our geographical
neighbours and other authorities in England and Wales and to
report back to the Executive early in 2004;
- to
ask officers to explore the possibility of developing a unified
approach with Oxfordshire’s geographical neighbours.
KEITH
BARTLEY
Director for
Learning & Culture
Background
Papers: Nil
Contact
Officer: John Mitchell. Tel: 01865 815619
May 2003
Return to TOP
|