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?

@ShallWeTalkAboutBruno

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

Because they filter out the troublesome ones. Parents are paying so clubs and sports pushed hard. Our school has huge range of free clubs but only 30% participate. There would be more fights and bored kids if longer

Ours finishes at 3.30pm so Dec and Jan my kids get home in the dark, also in Nov and Feb if they attend an after schoolclub or revision session. Our local Michaela equivalent also finishes at 5pm Mon-Thur.

The holidays are long, but I'm not sure an extended holiday quite makes up for the 50+ hours regularly worked a week in term time

Better than having those hours without the long holidays, as many of us do.

DD 15 starts at 8.10am and finishes at 2.30pm. What’s more mad is lunch is at 1pm.

My two finish at 2.25 😳 and only get 30 mins for lunch. Ridiculous if you ask me. They’d rather a decent lunch break and finish a bit later.

@erinnnnn

An hour lunch break would be such hard work. They are wild even in primary- not used to playing outdoors like back in the day.

I think that's an arguement for proper outdoor space at schools. I know at our primary they have an hour. They have a nice playground. Big with grass and trees and den building stuff, outdoor musical instruments, an outdoor classroom. During school hours it's rare not to see children in it assuming it's not chucking it down.

Children are a lot less "wild" if they can spend a bit of time in nature.

There's another school locally with a sad patch of concrete surrounded by high fences next to a busy main road. Always drive past and feel sorry for the children.

Better than having those hours without the long holidays, as many of us do

You are, of course more than welcome to become a teacher as well, if the long holidays are so appealing to you.

Unpaid holidays

@Twolostsoulsswimminginafishbow

DD 15 starts at 8.10am and finishes at 2.30pm. What’s more mad is lunch is at 1pm.

8.10 with teenage sleeping patterns?? FFS. My friend told me she read somewhere that making teenagers work at that time in the morning is equivalent of making adults work at 4 or 5am!!

I’d guess school finishes at 3pm because teachers need kid free time for lesson planning etc. same reason teachers arrive at 7am ish but the kids don’t start until 8.30am.

About a million years ago when I was at secondary school we had an hours lunchbreak and were able to leave the premises/ go home/ someone else’s house etc
My own kids have 30 mins and must stay on site presumably to keep them out of trouble.
My kids can’t quite believe we were allowed off site unsupervised during the day

Oh here comes the 'teacher vs non-teacher' argument...

@snowdropsandcrocuses

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.

“Condensed lessons”

What do they look like I wonder. The teacher speaks faster, the children read faster, they have double the amount of information to absorb?

I wonder if this concept could be extended to other professions. Surgeons expected to condense operations? Hairdressers to condense hair cuts? Judges and lawyers to condense the evidence offered in trials? Driving instructors to reduce driving lesson time? Gas fitters to get a wiggle on when they fit your central heating boiler? Cleaners to just give surfaces a quick wipe down? Airline pilots to condense flight times?

@ShallWeTalkAboutBruno its partly intake but also ethos. And of course they self reinforce. It was made very, very clear what was expected in from both parents and children in terms of attendance, homework, communications with school etc when we applied. It made it clear that the school was very strict (in am old fashioned rather than Michaela sort of way). So if you were looking for a more relaxed school, or wont accept your child not having access to a mobile phone in school time, or want one where your child can express themselves through hair colour, or where they could finish at 2.30 each day, you wouldnt send them there, theyd go to the next school along.

@bendmeoverbackwards Exactly! Children starting at 8.10 am is fucking stupid. They should not be starting any earlier than 9.30 a.m. IMO.

My state primary finished at 4pm. It was the only school in our town that closed at 4 every other school was half three.

I was in school by 8:10 and out at 3:30 pm I was absolutely shattered, a 50-minute lunch too( and had to be outside lesson 10 mins before the start so it was 40 mins). I think high school would be better off at 9:30 start and 4:00 finish personally. Teenagers just can't digest information that early and it really destroyed my ability to learn.

It's not "partly intake", it is mostly intake. The parents of the students who cause 90% of the trouble at our school didn't decide not to send their child to their local private school because they thought they were too strict or old fashioned. They didn't decide to sent them to the local comp because they preferred the ethos.

@viques oh I think you misunderstand me or perhaps I didn't word it correctly.

I don't for one second mean more info condensed. I mean, double periods for lessons to reduce the time that students are moving from class to class. I just imagine it is frustrating for teacher and a student alike to feel like no sooner have they got settled and into the lesson that the bell is ringing and off the students go to the next class. It just seems bonkers to me that the kids are forever packing/unpacking and migrating to the next room. That's a whole lot of wasted time.

However, pp have pointed out that studies show regular, repetitive learning is perhaps more beneficial than longer classes so I definitely stand to be corrected. I'm not suggesting however, as you appear to have understood, that teachers can 'condense' the same information into a shorter time!

It allows for after school clubs and meetings/training. I’m normally in by 7.30, kids start at 8.40.

I grew up outside Edinburgh, DH grew up in Glasgow. We were both baffled when we realised that our school times were so different.

On the west coast school finishes at 3pm every day. On the east coast we were in until 3:45pm Mon - Thurs, then finished at 12pm every Friday. It was great

It’s so sad. I get why it’s done but it’s sad.

My best memories from school are the long lunches in primary in summer where we would take our lunches into the school field and sit amongst the grass clippings making pretend worlds or in secondary gossiping with friends in the cafeteria or by the time I was in sixth form getting to leave school and walk to the local shop for lunch. Children these days miss out on so much (and I feel so old)

Break time used to be supervised by the prefects but I guess that isn’t a thing that happens anymore!

[quote snowdropsandcrocuses]@viques oh I think you misunderstand me or perhaps I didn't word it correctly.

I don't for one second mean more info condensed. I mean, double periods for lessons to reduce the time that students are moving from class to class. I just imagine it is frustrating for teacher and a student alike to feel like no sooner have they got settled and into the lesson that the bell is ringing and off the students go to the next class. It just seems bonkers to me that the kids are forever packing/unpacking and migrating to the next room. That's a whole lot of wasted time.

However, pp have pointed out that studies show regular, repetitive learning is perhaps more beneficial than longer classes so I definitely stand to be corrected. I'm not suggesting however, as you appear to have understood, that teachers can 'condense' the same information into a shorter time![/quote]
Double periods are hell on earth!

I think they probably work well in a practical subject, but Maths/ English/ French is really hard to sustain concentration. Especially with younger kids. I think 45 mins is about the max kids can concentrate.

Lunch times lasting around thirty minutes in poorly performing schools in deprived areas have been standard for a couple of decades. Schools in more middle class areas tend to have longer - that’s been my personal experience, not saying it’s necessarily law of course

I think this must be the key thing. Before I read the thread I was going to reply and say that it would be an extremely unusual secondary school that finished at 3pm. 3:30-4pm is the norm in my experience and 4-4:30 not unusual. But I have spent my whole life in an extremely middle class, sheltered bubble and am still frequently surprised how difficult some schools in some areas have it.

We finish at 4:30 and have an hour's lunch break with lots of clubs and facilities. But it's an independent school. I'd hate a short lunch break though. I teach Dance and Musical Theatre so lunchtime and after school time is essential for me - I'd never be allocated enough curriculum time to do anything useful with those who are actually keen on the subjects.

I also think that 1285 hours thing must be a state school thing too. I've only been teaching a few years but I've never heard of it. We are all on duty rotas to cover dining room, common areas, outside areas etc in all breaks and lunch times and all have to do lunchtime and after school clubs. There are dozens of evening events every term.

But we get hugely long holidays so it's swings and roundabouts. We keep the children occupied for literally as long as any parent could wish for in term time. But then we lumber parents with 17-18 weeks of school holidays!

@Orchid876 I like in a city with virtually no private school provision. Round here we choose bw state schools (no grammers either). We had a choice bw 3 secondaries for ds1 and 4 for ds2 - that's unusual but a choice bw 2 isn't.

TheMoth That's the opposite where I am. I'm a practical subject and would love double periods but I only have a single lesson allocation on the timetable so nothing to double up. And even that's only for FS and Key Stages 1 and 2. From Year 7 upwards mine are optional subjects that can only be done at lunchtime and after school. But English, Maths and Science have loads of doubles.