Longer school days, shorter holidays and 45-hour weeks 'could be the perfect manifesto to win the Tories the next election'

It’s a bold claim, but a former policy advisor to Number 10 thinks he has found a way for the Conservatives to win the next election.

Paul Kirby has proposed that lengthening school days and cutting holidays might be the “perfect” 2015 election promise, which could not only carry the Tories to victory next year, but also in 2020.

He proposes that the manifesto includes the pledge: “From September 2016, all state funded schools will, by law, provide 45 hours of education per week for 45 weeks of the year”

Mr Kirby, who has now left Number 10 and is a partner at accountancy firm KPMG, thinks this will prove extremely popular despite “teacher fury”.

He argues this will allow more women to enter the workforce, thus improving economic growth. He also claims it will greatly benefit children’s education and “poorer kids’ progression most.”

Despite insisting: “the role schools play in our national and family life is far too important to leave to teachers,” he claims that teachers will soon see the benefits of his plan.

Allowing longer days means lessons can become “less rushed, less stressful, more relaxed,” he says, explaining: “There is more time on the task – time to explain, to repeat, to explore.” He also says that increasing things like PE lessons will mean teachers won’t have to be in class constantly but will have free time to plan.

He proposes: “The extra-curricular could come into the curriculum – but for all kids, not just those with supportive or able parents.”

Finally, he evaluates its potential popularity based on the question: “If this new idea had been well established for the last 20 years and we proposed scrapping it, what would be the public reaction today? Relief, indifference, opposition?” He suggests there would be outrage both from mothers as well as from teachers who would have to cram a whole year into shortened terms.

However the National Union of Teachers have angrily refuted his claims, insisting that children are not to be treated as an “inconvenience” and that schools already work with local services to make sure playtime can be had by all.

Christine Blower, the General Secretary of the NUT, said: “Children and young people deserve a childhood and contrary to the suggestion that this will please parents the majority will not support this idea at all. Children are not an inconvenience to fit in around work. Equally education should not be viewed as a production line.

"For many children spending such a long period in school will be counterproductive. Primary school pupils in particular will find it very difficult to concentrate or even stay awake for such long periods. Childcare is of a course an issue for working parents and one which equally affects teachers with children as contrary to popular belief their day does not end when the school bell rings at the close of the day. Cuts to youth and play services have devastated these services in recent years and creative and sporting subjects have become increasingly marginalised in the curriculum.

“Teachers already work some of the longest hours of any profession with many putting in 50 to 60 hours a week . There needs to be a balance to ensure that both teachers and pupils have time to recharge their batteries.”

Their words have been echoed by psychology professor Dr Peter Gray, who writing for the Independent called for childhood “to be given back to children” and called for greater play.

Mr Kirby's idea is not new. Michael Gove called for longer school days earlier in 2013. He told the Spectator's schools conference that “in the most successful East Asian education systems.. school days are longer, school holidays are shorter.”

However Dr Peter Gray looks east, and suggests that it is not that simple.

He writes “According to the scholar and author Yong Zhao, who is an expert on schools in China, a common Chinese term used to refer to the products of their schools is gaofen dineng, which essentially means good at tests but bad at everything else. Because students spend nearly all of their time studying, they have little opportunity to be creative, discover or pursue their own passions, or develop physical and social skills. Moreover, as revealed by a recent large-scale survey conducted by British and Chinese researchers, Chinese schoolchildren suffer from extraordinarily high levels of anxiety, depression and psychosomatic stress disorders, which appear to be linked to academic pressures and lack of play.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We are already giving all schools the freedom to set the length of the school day and term. Many Academies and Free Schools offer extended opening hours, and we want more schools to take up these freedoms.

”We will obviously consider recommendations for further reforms.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/longer-school-days-shorter-holidays-and-45hour-weeks-could-be-the-perfect-manifesto-to-win-the-tories-the-next-election-9095549.html

Wait, so teachers are meant to hold under-10s' attention for up to 9 hours per day? Do they not realize that to a 10-year-old, one hour is basically four of my hours?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Wait, so teachers are meant to hold under-10s' attention for up to 9 hours per day? Do they not realize that to a 10-year-old, one hour is basically four of my hours?

Well why does it work well enough elsewhere Ben where they have better grades?

Your argument is based upon how to keep children interested, which of course you can, they already do it for more than one hour already, so that really is a moot point

Does it seem to be working in China, per your source? You know, we see the same thing in the U.S. when parents structure every last hour of their children's days -- they don't even know how to make up games anymore. It robs them of creativity and they expect everything that happens to them to be scheduled. Not a great way to go about learning or living if you ask me.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Does it seem to be working in China, per your source? You know, we see the same thing in the U.S. when parents structure every last hour of their children's days -- they don't even know how to make up games anymore. It robs them of creativity and they expect everything that happens to them to be scheduled. Not a great way to go about learning or living if you ask me.

Again your view point is not seeing if it can work but offering pseudo science in regards to why it cannot work Ben. I see this as the realty today where and as I am being constantly told many children are unprepared for the future, I fail to see how an extra hour a day is in anyway harmful or not beneficial

PhilDidge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Does it seem to be working in China, per your source? You know, we see the same thing in the U.S. when parents structure every last hour of their children's days -- they don't even know how to make up games anymore. It robs them of creativity and they expect everything that happens to them to be scheduled. Not a great way to go about learning or living if you ask me.

Again your view point is not seeing if it can work but offering pseudo science in regards to why it cannot work Ben. I see this as the realty today where and as I am being constantly told many children are unprepared for the future, I fail to see how an extra hour a day is in anyway harmful or not beneficial

@phil
do your kids do 8 hours?
ours only do 6 (up to 7 as senior)

@topic
Crazy I think, I doubt it will work as Europeans(including UK) simply don't have the same mind set as 'Han' Chinese  (the majority, but there are like 50 minority Chinese races) or Japanese and Koreans. That is more based on observation than hard numbers, those Asian nations can just study for hours, but they didn't seem to have the ingenuity of European kids. You can Achieve the educational outcomes without the extra hours you just need to teach smarter. (as in 'work smarter not harder') I know here we have embraced technology in education and the curriculum is moving away from learning by rote and becoming more focused on the ability to  find, capture and interpret information.

Do you have 'Smartboards' in your schools? they are a cross between a projector and an electric white board that you can connect to a computer, the 'markers' can interact with whatever in projected onto the board, they look like markers but they are more like Wii controllers in function. they have been a great success here and they are now getting rolled out to every classroom in the state.



SO there are other options then just spending more time, like us you can try doing away with the Chalkboard  

Not pseudo-science Phil; it's an observation that has been made by many U.S. social scientists and social critics. Kids' minds demand unstructured time, and I don't think the solution is to pour more structured time on a populace you wish to some day be creative and adaptable.

It almost sounds like the government doing exactly what business says on the basis that the wealthy must know best ... just look to the likes of Henry Ford to see how brilliant businessmen can be woefully incompetent in all other matters.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Not pseudo-science Phil; it's an observation that has been made by many U.S. social scientists and social critics. Kids' minds demand unstructured time, and I don't think the solution is to pour more structured time on a populace you wish to some day be creative and adaptable.

It almost sounds like the government doing exactly what business says on the basis that the wealthy must know best ... just look to the likes of Henry Ford to see how brilliant businessmen can be woefully incompetent in all other matters.

Sorry completely disagree, you only have to look back 40 or 50 years how children had more productive days at school and were physically fitter, of which plenty of studies also have been done on this. All you are using in your counter here is based upon whether a child can cope with one more hour in the day learning. This longer day can also include more time for further physical activity, which further serves to benefit the child.


http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Kids_Need_More_Time_Learn/

Phil has a point if that time includes sports and 'play time' it is... still a long day for kids. the main advantage I can see is that parents wont need to worry about child care.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Does it seem to be working in China, per your source? You know, we see the same thing in the U.S. when parents structure every last hour of their children's days -- they don't even know how to make up games anymore. It robs them of creativity and they expect everything that happens to them to be scheduled. Not a great way to go about learning or living if you ask me.

Totally agree there. The fact is that schools are becoming virtual children's homes, for the convenience of working parents. What about kids who are being bullied at school? I bet they can't wait to get home. What home? By the time they'll get there, had a rushed dinner, done even more homework, bath and bed. What about a family life? So glad I don't have small kids to bring up in this environment.

When I was a kid we played out in the streets after school. There was NO homework for junior school kids. The standard of education was such in those days that we all moved on to big school at age 11 with the ability to read, write and do maths to an acceptable standard. Of course times have moved on - but is it a change for the better for kids? I don't think so.

Tess. wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Does it seem to be working in China, per your source? You know, we see the same thing in the U.S. when parents structure every last hour of their children's days -- they don't even know how to make up games anymore. It robs them of creativity and they expect everything that happens to them to be scheduled. Not a great way to go about learning or living if you ask me.

Totally agree there.  The fact is that schools are becoming virtual children's homes, for the convenience of working parents.  What about kids who are being bullied at school? I bet they can't wait to get home.  What home? By the time they'll get there, had a rushed dinner, done even more homework, bath and bed.  What about a family life?  So glad I don't have small kids to bring up in this environment.

When I was a kid we played out in the streets after school.  There was NO homework for junior school kids.  The standard of education was such in those days that we all moved on to big school at age 11 with the ability to read, write and do maths to an acceptable standard.  Of course times have moved on - but is it a change for the better for kids?  I don't think so.

Morning Tess

Sadly kids do not want to in the main play out on the streets these days but sit glued to the Tele, PC etc. This isa  much better way in providing further education, exercise and helping provide a better opportunity for the children to have a better chance in life. You use badly again exceptions using emotive arguments, as if this is the case for all. If we took your line that we must never try something because it may affect a small percentage of people, nothing would ever change

As I am constantly being reminded today things are very different and I fail to see how this is the wrong way forward, when currently as seen more and more kids are becoming overweight and many young children fail to understand basic English and maths

PhilDidge wrote:

Tess. wrote:
Totally agree there.  The fact is that schools are becoming virtual children's homes, for the convenience of working parents.  What about kids who are being bullied at school? I bet they can't wait to get home.  What home? By the time they'll get there, had a rushed dinner, done even more homework, bath and bed.  What about a family life?  So glad I don't have small kids to bring up in this environment.

When I was a kid we played out in the streets after school.  There was NO homework for junior school kids.  The standard of education was such in those days that we all moved on to big school at age 11 with the ability to read, write and do maths to an acceptable standard.  Of course times have moved on - but is it a change for the better for kids?  I don't think so.

Morning Tess

Sadly kids do not want to in the main play out on the streets these days but sit glued to the Tele, PC etc. This isa  much better way in providing further education, exercise and helping provide a better opportunity for the children to have a better chance in life. You use badly again exceptions using emotive arguments, as if this is the case for all. If we took your line that we must never try something because it may affect a small percentage of people, nothing would ever change

As I am constantly being reminded today things are very different and I fail to see how this is the wrong way forward, when currently as seen more and more kids are becoming overweight and many young children fail to understand basic English and maths

Well you just shot yourself in the foot there didn't ya? You say first that sitting at a computer's much better for the children to "have a better chance in life", then go on to say they can't understand basic English and maths and suffer from obesity! Well if they got away from the fucking computer and did some exercise they'd surely "have a better chance of life, not just in life!"

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Morning Tess

Sadly kids do not want to in the main play out on the streets these days but sit glued to the Tele, PC etc. This isa  much better way in providing further education, exercise and helping provide a better opportunity for the children to have a better chance in life. You use badly again exceptions using emotive arguments, as if this is the case for all. If we took your line that we must never try something because it may affect a small percentage of people, nothing would ever change

As I am constantly being reminded today things are very different and I fail to see how this is the wrong way forward, when currently as seen more and more kids are becoming overweight and many young children fail to understand basic English and maths

Well you just shot yourself in the foot there didn't ya?  You say first that sitting at a computer's much better for the children to "have a better chance in life", then go on to say they can't understand basic English and maths and suffer from obesity!  Well if they got away from the fucking computer and did some exercise they'd surely "have a better chance of life, not just in life!"

Dear me, what did you miss about more time exercising at school in my counter.

Grow up

PhilDidge wrote:

Tess. wrote:
Well you just shot yourself in the foot there didn't ya?  You say first that sitting at a computer's much better for the children to "have a better chance in life", then go on to say they can't understand basic English and maths and suffer from obesity!  Well if they got away from the fucking computer and did some exercise they'd surely "have a better chance of life, not just in life!"

Dear me, what did you miss about more time exercising at school in my counter.

Grow up  

What did you miss about Ben's post and the Chinese kids? So you think kids' quality of life would be improved if they were kept at school and made to do exercise? I would have called that institutionalization. O Brave New World.

Reduce the burden on government spending which will:

reduce income taxes, which will:

reduce how hard and long people have to work, which will:

improve peoples lives, which will:

win an election.

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Dear me, what did you miss about more time exercising at school in my counter.

Grow up  

What did you miss about Ben's post and the Chinese kids?  So you think kids' quality of life would be improved if they were kept at school and made to do exercise?  I would have called that institutionalization.  O Brave New World.

Moot argument, do they already do exercise at school.

yes

Would this just mean more?

Yes

brave new world, absurd again