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?

Our school used to be 8.30 til 3 with an hour for lunch. There were complaints of fights and bad behaviour at lunch time and an academy has taken over - it is now 8.20 til 2.30 with half an hour for lunch and so now there are no lunchtime clubs, which many are not happy about. Some parents have been complaining their children spend all lunch time queuing and don't get to eat. So I do agree with the OP (although I didn't expect to when I first read the title). Secondary schools should start later and finish later.

In Scotland teachers are employed for a 35 hour week, 22.5 hours in class and 7.5 personal allowance.

Poor behaviour is a society wide problem. Schools are at the point of coping via whatever means they can. If a shorter lunch break improves behaviour then a shorter lunch break it is. There's no money for properly supervised longer lunches.

All the teachers I know insist they work til 8pm most days anyway, so why not have the kids a bit longer.

I don’t think it’s just linked to funding. My first school had thirty minutes for lunch - that was back in 2002, in Blair’s government.

DS1’s secondary school finishes at 3.45. They start at about 8.45 and have what I consider reasonable breaks and lunchtimes. DS2’s secondary school starts at 8.25, finishes at 2.50, and has a stupidly short lunch time, with many kids unable to finish eating in time - it makes me quite cross.

@DarlingDarwin

All the teachers I know insist they work til 8pm most days anyway, so why not have the kids a bit longer.

Because we don’t want to be working until 10 pm!

@snowdropsandcrocuses

We have 2 weekly staff meetings after school, then also parents eve, open eve, revision eve etc

How come you have two, @OnceuponaRainbow18? That’s a lot. Although thinking about it, we had a two hour weekly staff meeting at my last school.

Teachers contracts include an amount of directed time. Schools can’t afford as many lunchtime supervisors or staff in general and so it is teachers who would be needed to cover extended lunch breaks and it’s not possible to do that whilst also having before and after school meetings, parents evenings and open evenings etc. as directed times. I think there is a definite shift in opening times of schools too, which was done to benefit parents commuting into work (imo) not the children who have to get up earlier. Now people are asking why schools aren’t open later too? Because we’re not childcare? Because the government doesn’t give schools enough money to run longer school days? Because the idea that teachers get a lunch break when kids are running amok down the corridors and outside their classroom is laughable? I don’t mean to seem rude, but honestly schools are at breaking point as it is, add another hour onto the day and if they’re financially able to do so, most teachers I know would quit. For me, one of the remaining perks of my job is that I can leave around 4:00 each day and spend the evening with my DC, so finishing at 4pm and then having meetings and leaving at 5 would absolutely suck for me.

Also to add, it seems teachers are put upon more and more instead of schools trialling a different approach.

I may be being idealistic because I am not a teacher but longer lunch breaks or school days seem like they could benefit all of addressed different. For instance, allowing longer lunch but expectation that all children will sit in the lunch hall and eat together for half of that time and allowing teachers time to genuinely prepare for afternoon lessons.

I also wonder at the really short lesson times. How any teacher actually achieves any teaching in 50 minutes is beyond me. Why have English every day? Surely condensed lessons would make it easier to achieve anything? All that time lost to loving pupils from room to room constantly through the day seems insane to me

But to refer to my original question, it seems that there is no mandate in timings. Merely academies and businesses pushing to wring every last Penny out of educators which is incredibly sad.

Maybe if schools gave kids activities to do outside at lunchtimes they wouldn't misbehave?!

Maybe if schools gave kids activities to do outside at lunchtimes they wouldn't misbehave?!

Ever met any belligerent tweenagers? [grin[

Some people on this thread seem very naive about teen behaviour.

For instance, allowing longer lunch but expectation that all children will sit in the lunch hall and eat together for half of that time and allowing teachers time to genuinely prepare for afternoon lessons.

You'd need a hall big enough to start with. Then who is supervising the kids?

The secondary school I went to finished at 3:35. That was considered the norm in my area. The secondary school that I work in now doesn't finish until 3:45.

@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.

Go on then, we're all ears...

The early end does provide time for extracurricular activities in higher levels. Sports team practices, extra orchestra rehearsals, the school play.

@snowdropsandcrocuses my 'contracted paid hours' are 32.5 hours a week so 6.5 hours a day. I think that's standard across most schools that follow the burgundy book agreement.

I'm not getting into what hours I actually work as it's a boring fight that goes on and on

Lesson timing wise it's better for long term retention to see content more frequently over short bursts. So 4x50 min lessons per week is better for memory than 2x100 min lessons. I appreciate practical subjects benefit from longer lessons.

I do agree a slightly longer lunch would be conducive, even another ten / fifteen minutes.

I know at my first school it was an attempt to stop fights breaking out.

I changed lunch time in a primary school to give children lunch in the middle of the break rather than eat first and have a long session outside afterwards. This helped to manage behaviour.

Children are much more limited in their play outside of the home now. They don't develop the skills we did, of long stretches outside with our mates, taking risks, sorting out our differences, keeping ourselves motivated, making up games to keep busy.

The children in my school couldn't manage themselves and others, be independent and resilient, focus and play together for more than 15 minutes at a time. A 'split' lunch helped.

School support staff here: I finish at 4. If the last lesson finished at 4 I'd have to finish at 4:30'at the earliest. If they're prepared to pay me for that extra 30mins and actually I finish at 3:30 on one day a week so 1hour then. Then fine but they won't.

And no I'm not on the same pay structure, scale or in the same way as teachers

@snowdropsandcrocuses also. Our dining room cannot accommodate all pupils sat down at once. In fact we stagger lunch and it can't accommodate two year groups at once.

Additionally. As much as the lunchtime staff are lovely. It's paid minimum wage for 2 hours a day work. It attracts a certain clientele and unfortunately not those with the strongest leadership over teenagers.

I think the fact that the school population has expanded much faster than buildings is relevant. A lot of school playing fields have been sold too as land is so valuable for housing and schools are so skint. So there isn't enough space to have students hanging around unnecessarily and if they are allowed off site they may make a pain of themselves in local shops. Schools have also got larger and (in my part of the country at least) students often travel a long way to them so you can't have them leave too late.