Education, Education, Education

I warn you now that there is a very high chance that this post will end up causing controversy. I'm not usually one for getting involved in politics as, if I'm totally honest, I find that I don't often understand what's going in the realm of the government. This morning, however, I found out that Conservative member, Paul Kirby has suggested that longer school days and shorter holidays are the way to win votes from parents. As I felt my blood begin to bubble and boil inside my veins, I knew I had to write about it and get it off my chest.

The idea behind his proposal is that parents struggle to balance work life and looking after their children, so he wants the school day to be extended to 6pm. 

In typical politician style, he's tried his best to phrase it to sound amazing and as though he cares for the teachers in this scenario:

'What about the teachers...surely they must resent the extra hours, the longer days? Aren’t they already at breaking point? How can they be supportive? Firstly, having more time each day, means that lessons are less rushed, less stressful, more relaxed. There is more time on the task – time to explain, to repeat, to explore. Secondly, schools with extended time find new ways to free up teachers from teaching.' 

Personally, I struggle to see how this would work with children, as yes more time to teach as you're supposed to teach would be a great idea, but the attention span in children is usually fairly low. It is recommended that when an adult or child is working on something, short breaks shoudl be taken on a regular basis to improve productivity. 

I know there is much debate surrounding the legitimacy of this, but 'Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder' (ADHD) is a common childhood disorder which is said to affect approximately five percent of primary school-aged children. This means that a child's rate of attention is a lot lower than those without ADHD, and can consequently cause impulsivity and hyperactivity. As a result, this means that the rest of the class may become distracted by these children. 

His argument is that by increasing the time spent, children would benefit by gaining the equivalent of an extra 7 years of compulsory education between the ages of 5 and 16. Has it not already been made compulsory for children to remain in school/college until 18 anyway? Much as it frustrates me, some children cannot hack vast amounts of education and they will cause disruption to everyone else in the class because they are not happy to be there. 

Another thing I have a major problem with is the additional funding required for this to be in any way plausible. I can't see the government stumping up more money for education, but equally I won't blame teachers for not wanting to add another 3 hours onto their teaching day for no additional wages. Kirby states that, PE sessions could be longer, 'led by outside sports coaches and supervised by teaching assistants' - again, more money! 

Apparently it is something which has been seen to work within the US and, during the PE sessions, teachers can take the opportunity to get together during this time to do planning etc. I'm not too sure on the validity of his argument here, as teachers already get weekly PPA time which is nowhere near as much as required to keep on top of everything. Many teachers get to school for 7am and, whilst I am aware that this will vary from school to school, I know of several schools which are open late (9 pm) for teachers to stay and get work done, too! A good 50% of the staff stay until closing time, before taking additional things to do at home. 

I think Kirby's difficulty here is in understanding the sheer load of work required of teachers. Teachers usually carry multiple roles which they are not paid any extra for, so they do need the evenings to get work done. Not to mention staff meetings which usually happen immediately after school and often last a couple of hours, surely meetings lasting til 8pm would be ridiculous?! All this and I haven't even mentioned additional 'booster' classes which are usually offered close to exam time, and various clubs (which again, the teachers are not paid additionally for). These activities are usually an hour long or more, so could they still take place? It's not fair for a child to miss out, but it's equally unfair to expect teachers to work for such excessive periods of time. 

Yes, childcare is expensive, but forcing both pupils and teachers into spending longer at school is not the way to fix it. School is NOT childcare. Yes, your child's school has a position of responsibility whilst looking after other people's children, but they are paid to educate not teach. Same goes for clubs like Brownies, actually, we are not here to babysit because you can't look after them...I digress, that's for another day...

I'm not the only one who sees the problem with this. In the US, where it seems that Paul Kirby got his idea from, The Atlantic interviewed a Chicago teacher who stated that, “I don’t know how anyone is able to do everything they need to do within the school hours,” says one Chicago teacher. “It’s not possible.” 

I don't think that this hairbrained scheme is something that will take off, but I couldn't help sharing my views on it all.