Why do schools finish at 3?

[snowdropsandcrocuses]

Genuine question but before teachers come gunning for me, let me explain.

In particular I am referring to secondary schools here and have just been reading the thread on teachers having ridiculously short lunch breaks which got me thinking.

Why is there such a rush to finish school early? Finishing school at 4pm for example, would allow longer lunch breaks (giving teachers and pupils a full break plus allowing lunch clubs more time), could factor in a little more transition time and just take a bit of pressure off. It would definitely help parents as well. I'm struggling to see the negatives. This is not to say I want teachers to work even harder because I don't but I wonder if there is a particular mandate that dictates the maximum 'opening hours' of comprehensive schools?

Why don’t independent schools have issues with the children being ‘wild’ and ‘causing havoc’ on hour long lunch breaks?

Have you read Lord of the Flies?! It is a very bad idea to let children spend too much time together!!!

@letsghostdance

You don't want to give children more time at lunch time.

It's just more opportunity for them to go rogue.

This

We finish at 4:45 (also an independent school) and have 1h 10m for lunch.
I've never worked in a state secondary school that finished at 3. The earliest was 3:40! We never left until after 5 though.

Ours doesn't even make it til 3pm. They finish at 2:45. 8:45-2:45

Money.

Teachers can't be made to work more hours, but some supervision is needed. So more staff would he needed. Which costs money. And these lunchtime clubs are marvellous but not run themselves...

Secondary age kids don’t need to be supervised at lunch, do they?

Repetition of what other poster have said really - my school used to have a 70 minute lunchbreak, but there was so much poor behaviour, fights etc that it was condensed to 35 minutes.

@ShallWeTalkAboutBruno

Why don’t independent schools have issues with the children being ‘wild’ and ‘causing havoc’ on hour long lunch breaks?

Because they would be expelled.

Less time for poor behaviour of students.
Cheaper, less mid day supervisor salary.

No staff, it is really difficult to recruit supervisors to work for just 90 mins in the middle of every day, on minimum wage and with the joys of managing large groups of misbehaving teenagers.

In Spain my lunch was 15 minutes at my desk with a brought from home sandwich. School started earlier and finished at 13.00 so no extra supervision needed at all.

My high school finished at 3:45. We had a morning, lunch and afternoon break and 5 lessons a day. Meant first lesson could be a double without any hassle (esp food tech!)

Other than first and second, each lesson had a break between so teachers and students had time to get to the loo, gets the rights books etc. But we weren't allowed to carry around bags or coats between lessons so we had to go back to the lockers to get stuff for the next lesson really.

Worked really well. There was even a break between last lesson and detention starting so you could get yourself sorted .

I think it’s mostly to do with the attention span of children / teens. Most function best in the morning and become more fractious / less able to focus in the afternoons.

Additionally, an earlier finish acknowledges that school-based formal learning is not the only important element for children. They also need to learn to relax, play, exercise, socialise, and spend time in different environments.

@ShallWeTalkAboutBruno

Bloody hell, it’s no wonder kids play up if they’re constantly being told they’re ‘wild’ and ‘cause havoc’ and can’t be trusted to have a decent lunch break.

You've got this entirely the wrong way around.

Lunch breaks were shortened in response to poor behaviour (among other things). They used to be longer.

I live abroad and my kid is primary but goes to school from 9-5pm but they have a lunch break for two hours, which you can choose to pay to keep them in school for or you take them home and bring them back later.

An 8am start with focus on enrichment and getting into the right mindset for learning with a 3pm finish would be more beneficial to the kids than a 9-4 day. Non-teaching staff drafted for the morning enrichment so teaching staff can use that time for prep/meetings

@ShallWeTalkAboutBruno

Why don’t independent schools have issues with the children being ‘wild’ and ‘causing havoc’ on hour long lunch breaks?

Higher staff to child ratios. Expectations of parents who pay. Better facilities to engage students. One of my local indies has onsite, and accessible, common rooms with tech and music, a fully equipped gym, stables, a restaurant, a coffee shop, a bowling alley....

Lunch breaks were shortened in response to poor behaviour (among other things). They used to be longer

Then there’s got to be a way to deal with poor behaviour that doesn’t involve kids barely having time to shove some food down their throats.

Interesting responses.

To those who are surprised by the 3pm finish, our local secondary starts at 8:35 and finishes at 3pm.

To the teachers that have responded, I'm interested to know what your 'contracted hours' are. I realise that with the onslaught of academies which essentially privatised the school system under our noses that the old 'public sector' rules went out the window but I am assuming you all have contracted hours. What are you 'supposed' to work. I note some have said 8-4 would push them over their 40hr week however lunch breaks are not paid so 8-4 Monday to Friday would equal 40hrs - minus 1hr lunch/break which would equal 7hour days x 5 = 35hours.

I realise teachers work many many more hours than that - which is supposedly balanced out by your holidays (I know you work them too).

Because when we have staff meetings, marking etc we are there much later. Lately it's rare I leave before 5pm and I still take work home. I don't want the kids to have a longer lunch break, they already get unruly enough in the hour they have!

Then there’s got to be a way to deal with poor behaviour that doesn’t involve kids barely having time to shove some food down their throats.

More supervision, which costs money, which schools don't have.

Lobby your MP for more school funding.

@noblegiraffe

Then there’s got to be a way to deal with poor behaviour that doesn’t involve kids barely having time to shove some food down their throats.

More supervision, which costs money, which schools don't have.

Lobby your MP for more school funding.

I do. Regularly.

Agree does seem very early.no time for lunch clubs or actually eating lunch. Also should start a bit later. I am sure there was a study that proved teenagers think better later in the day.

Secondary I work in finishes at 3, social time behaviour is terrible, lunch time is 35min and staggered for the year groups. Most lessons are a double to try and avoid movement around the school where the kids are less supervised.

@ShallWeTalkAboutBruno

Lunch breaks were shortened in response to poor behaviour (among other things). They used to be longer

Then there’s got to be a way to deal with poor behaviour that doesn’t involve kids barely having time to shove some food down their throats.

There is but it requires strong lunchtime staff with good training. Really difficult to find the quality of staff required for just over an hour in the middle of every day. Not many want to do the job and even if they did many school budgets are in deficit and they are having to make the savings where they can. Saying that my own children don't finish until 15.55.

Teachers have 1265 hours per year of time that they can be directed to do tasks by the HT. This appears as 32.5 hours per week on my payslip.

I work approximately double that!