Giving pupils a longer school day has a “small yet positive effect on overall attainment”, with schools given top Ofsted grades and those that select pupils by ability also more likely to extend their days.
The previous government set out an expectation that schools should provide at least a 32.5-hour week for pupils from this September.
An Education Policy Institute study published this week confirms what other research has already shown – that most schools already meet or exceed the new expectation.
But the study sheds further light on the types of schools with longer days, and the impact it has on pupil outcomes.
Extra hour = one fifth of a GCSE grade
The research concluded that additional time in school “is associated with a small, yet positive, effect on overall attainment in both primary and secondary school”.
An additional hour of school a week in primary schools is associated with improvements in key stage 2 scaled scores of 0.053 and 0.066 for maths and reading, the study found.
At secondary, an additional hour of weekly school time was associated with almost a fifth (0.17) of a grade improvement in one GCSE subject. Its impact was greater on languages than on English, maths, science and humanities.
Which schools extend their days?
Secondary schools tended to have slightly longer average school weeks than primary schools, by about 20 minutes.
Free schools also had “noticeably longer school weeks than other types of school”.
In 2023-24, primary free schools had on average almost an additional hour of school time per week compared to the average primary school.
At secondary level, free schools had school weeks that were over one hour longer, while community and foundation schools had weeks almost half an hour shorter than the national average.
Selective schools had weeks almost an hour longer than non-selective schools, and ‘outstanding’ rated schools had weeks between 10 and 20 minutes longer than the typical school.
New government position ‘in due course’
The new government has not said whether or not it remains committed to the 32.5 hour week expectation.
The DfE said it would consider the EPI’s findings carefully and set out its position “in due course”.
“Every hour in the classroom helps break down barriers to opportunity for young people and paves the way for their future success,” a spokesperson said.
“Ensuring children have the best possible chance to thrive at school is a top priority for this government.
“That’s why we are taking action to address the barriers to being in the classroom, including increasing access to mental health support in schools, offering free breakfast clubs, and ensuring earlier intervention for children with additional needs.”
So an an extra 38 hours at school (one hour per week) is worth a tiny fractional gain.
In England we have soaring levels of children with eyesight problems (because they read too much too early) and might see what’s happening in Asia as a salutary tale , some of the unhappiest children in world and as a profession we are struggling to recruit and retain teachers, I think we need to start looking at the bigger picture and stop this nonsense.
MATs: Mmm! What can we do to help solve the recruitment and workload crisis in education? A longer day! More time teaching. More marking to do. More planning.
Teachers: Bye!
Another red herring. Nothing about whether there is correlation between both these fields of data and other factors such as poverty and affluence, health statistics in the areas of schools with longer or shorter days, behaviour management or calm environment. A school can afford a longer day if they need less staff to manage behaviour during it. If a school can facilitate longer breaks, more interest groups and good social connections, they can support concentration which makes a longer day both possible and useful. But poor behaviour, stemming from poverty, poorly met needs, cultural barriers to education, hunger etc etc etc also impacts outcomes. I’m not interested until someone tells me that all these factors have been controlled for in how these statistics have been compiled. Its attendance all over again. Causes of poor attendance are sidelined against a convenient statistic that attendance impacts outcomes. It completely misses the point.
What about family time? Or time for activities outside school? Some children are barely getting through the school day as it is.
Add homework onto that and it’s striping time from social, leisure and wellbeing activities. This time develops skills and is other forms of learning.
How about sorting the root of the causes of low attendance first , all the unmet needs of SEND children and the failure to differentiate education for these children?
More does not always mean better. This strikes me as a study with a predetermined agenda designed to produce the result intended. All it will achieve is contribute to the undignified scramble to get out before it’s too late.
Agreed Hubert. I think that schools need to, if anything, shorten their hours the vast majority of lower ability kids simply cannot handle the current provision and they think more lessons will help…