Of Governors
Dear Colleague,
I am writing to inform you of the latest developments regarding the national six term year proposals and to invite feedback on the pattern of term dates to be adopted by Norfolk County Council for school year 2004/05.
The local consultation undertaken last year on the proposals of the Independent Commission on the Organisation of the School Year revealed general support for the principle of a standard school year based on a six-term pattern. In fact, 80% of the Norfolk Headteachers and Chairs of Governors that responded to the questionnaire, agreed with the recommendations of the Commission to move to a six term year. The results of the local consultation were considered by Norfolk County Councils Cabinet which resolved that Norfolk would support the national six term year proposals in principle, if change takes place on a regional or preferably national basis.
The consultation also identified significant concerns about
particular aspects of the Independent Commissions proposals and these were
included in Norfolks submission to the Local Government Association (LGA)
which co-ordinated the national consultation on this subject. A similar combination of support and concern
emerged across the country (summarised by the Commission in appendix 1).
The Commission has now considered the consultation outcomes
and has subsequently revised its guidance on term dates for the 2004/05 school
year. The Commission suggests that its 2004/05 proposals take account of the
responses received and represent a measured step in a gradual process of
standardisation. The dates recommended
by the Commission are shown in appendix 2.
The Education and Cultural Services Review Panel has considered the Commissions recommendations whilst having regard to the need to:
The Panel concluded that schools and professional associations should be consulted on the dates suggested by the Commission together with an amended version which may be more favourable for Norfolk in the first year of moving towards a standard six term pattern.
The options are:
Option A (the Commissions recommended dates
appendix 2)
§ two extra holiday days in October, in order to relieve stress in the run-up to Christmas. This is the minimum the Commission believes to be appropriate for an extended October holiday
§ term 2 to finish on Tuesday, 21 December and term 3 to commence on Tuesday 4 January with a training day. Pupils to return on Wednesday, 5 January
The calendar proposed by the Commission contains an envelope
of 192 days which
contains two fixed training days. The Commission suggests that LEAs should leave the determination of the other three training days to individual schools, subject to any advice which LEAs think appropriate. They suggest that the remaining three days could be made up of aggregated twilight hours consisting of periods after school, at weekends or during pupils holiday periods.
This is a significant change from current arrangements. Norfolk currently sets a calendar of 195
days for the school year and within this, the first day of the Autumn term is
set as a training day. The other four
are identified by individual schools from within the remaining 194 days. However, this arrangement is producing
significant additional transport costs where schools on the same bus route do
not co-ordinate dates. The adoption of
the Commissions proposals will eliminate this problem.
Option B: (an alternative pattern based on the
Commissions model appendix 3)
1 September. Pupils to return on Thursday, 2 September
We would be grateful for your views on these options. Responses will be reported to Norfolk County Councils Cabinet on 7 April when a decision will be made on the pattern of dates to adopt for 2004/05.
Please complete the attached form (appendix 4) and return it to: Malcolm Reeve, Strategic Core, Education Department, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2DL by Friday 14 March. The form can also be completed and submitted via the Esinet website: www.esinet.norfolk.gov.uk/sixtermyear A copy of the Commissions report and other information can also be found on this site.
Please contact Malcolm Reeve if you require any further information.
Yours sincerely
Bryan Slater
Director of Education
Appendix 1
1.
Outcome of LEA-level
consultations during spring/summer 2002
(extracted
from the Independent Commissions September 2002 report)
Background
After publication of the independent
commissions December 2001 report which made detailed recommendations on
setting term dates and holidays for 2003-04 and draft recommendations for
2004-05, LGA asked LEAs to consult on the proposals in their local communities.
LGA has now received full or interim consultation responses from 52 per cent of
LEAs and has knowledge of further work being carried out in a number of others
(12 per cent). Of these, each LEA has consulted according to local traditions
and practices, some consulting widely among an extensive network of stakeholder
groups, some restricting their consultations to head teachers and governors as
a first stage. Some, like the Eastern Region Term Dates Group, are to be
congratulated for having co-ordinated their consultations across neighbouring
authorities. Despite differences in approach, there are strong themes and
identifiable trends in all the feedback received to date.
§ Extremely
high levels of support for evening out the spring and summer terms lengths by
stabilising the influence of Easter (average response rates showed support
levels in the 90s per cent range; any opposition tended to be from those with
concerns centred on the Easter festival losing significance).
§ Similar
levels of support for authorities working together regionally and nationally
(upper 80s/lower 90s per cent).
§ Support
levels for the general principle of introducing a six-term pattern to the
school year ranged between 60 and 70 per cent.
§ An
almost unanimous call for national or at least regional implementation in
2004-05 (earliest) to permit time for more work on points of detail.
§ The
need for a two-week break in October. Teacher and governor responses tended to
indicate strong support for this proposal but parents and teachers who are also
parents, tended to suggest an extra week at Christmas might be more beneficial.
A minority suggested adding it to the February break to increase skiing
opportunities and to save school heating bills, while others suggested it be
moved to May because the weather is purportedly better.
§ The
slightly reduced length of the summer break. Some teachers and those with
business interests in tourist areas tended to be less supportive here. Parents
tended to be more supportive because they were concerned about learning loss
and boredom leading to increased levels of street crime among young people.
§ The
effects on pupil achievement and school standards. Teaching professionals
tended to support the notion that more regular and predictable planning and
curriculum delivery/assessment cycles would have a beneficial effect on
standards. Others queried the evidence base for the assertion.
§ The
use of the proposed Term 6. Many respondents asked for more clarity on how Term
6 could be used more creatively.
§ Concerns
about the possible impact on school attendance and the possibility that parents
might be more likely to take children out of school in term-time for family
holidays, especially in the years when the Easter festival falls in term
time. Disappointment among some in the
education sector that a more radical approach wasn't proposed. Some argued that
the six-term pattern was too much of a compromise of stakeholder interests.
§ Change
to a mid-late August start to school year (many felt that the country was not
psychologically ready for an August start to the school year. This proposal
was generally considered too radical).
§ Teaching
professionals had concerns relating to the impact on Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) days.
Points of detail on which further work requested
§ The
introduction of post-qualification application (PQA) to higher education. PQA
is strongly supported among nearly all stakeholder groups and respondents have
asked for reassurance that PQA is a real possibility, albeit one that follows
at a later date.
§ Linked
to the PQA issue, many asked for similar reassurance that the examination
boards are actively considering changing the public examination timetable to
permit introduction of PQA. In one authority, concern was expressed that moving
the examination timetable forward would justifiably give time for examinations
marking but then reduce the amount of time for teachers to cover the syllabus.
§ The
effect on school admission dates for children with August birthdays.
§ Clarification on the
effects on teachers terms and conditions of contract (pension entitlements,
resignation and start dates, etc.)
§ The effect on
home-to-school transport costs in rural authorities of the
local-flexibility-day options.
§ Dealing
with negativity from some teacher associations.
§ Clarification
on legislative requirements surrounding governors meetings.
It should perhaps be noted that amongst
all LEA-level consultations, only two received returns which rejected the
commissions proposals outright and one of these, Derby City Council, was keen
to point out that if bordering authorities changed they would in all likelihood
follow suit.
2. Substantive concerns and issues raised through the Norfolks consultation
§ Implications for teachers conditions of service with particular respect to the proposal to commence the school year in August
The Commission advises that an LEA has authority to make this change under Section 41 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. If this is seen as raising any teachers contractual issues, the LGA will seek clarification or amendment to regulations. In recent discussions between the Commission and governmental and employers organisations it was agreed that an LEA wanting to set a school year in the interest of pupils should not be inhibited from doing so by contractual issues.
§ Clarification of future arrangements for continuing professional development days
For 2004/05, the Commission has recommended 190 teaching days and two training days. It recommends that LEAs should leave the determination of the other three training days to individual schools, subject to any advice which the LEA thinks appropriate. The Commission suggests that the other three days training could be found during pupils holiday periods or through aggregated twilight hours in lieu. The use of twilight hours in place of training days offers teachers the possibility of longer holidays.
§
The impact
on national examination periods.
The Commission is in contact with Universities UK (UUK) and the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP). UUK will be consulting UUK and SCOP members on Post-Qualification Application (PQA). A six term year is seen as an important element in discussions on the implementation of PQA.
§ The effect on pupil attendance.
One element of a standardised school year is predictability for parents as well as teachers. The Commission is seeking to establish a framework within which differences in term dates between LEAs and schools are minimised.
Appendix 2 Option A: The Commissions recommended dates (192 days)
|
|
Monday |
Tuesday |
Wednesday |
Thursday |
Friday |
|
|
Aug/Sep |
30 |
31 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1
training |
|
Sep |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
|
Sep |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
|
Sep |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
|
Sep/Oct |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
1 |
|
|
Oct |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
|
Oct |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
|
Oct |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
36
teaching |
|
Oct |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
|
Nov |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
Nov |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
|
Nov |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
|
Nov |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
|
Nov/Dec |
29 |
30 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
Dec |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
|
Dec |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
|
Dec |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
37
teaching |
|
Dec |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
Jan |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
1
training |
|
Jan |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
|
Jan |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
|
Jan |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
Jan/Feb |
31 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
Feb |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
28
teaching |
|
Feb |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
|
Feb |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
|
Feb/Mar |
28 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
Mar |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
|
Mar |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
|
Mar |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
|
Mar/Apr |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
1 |
28
teaching |
|
Apr |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
|
Apr |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
|
Apr |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
|
Apr |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
|
May |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
May |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
|
May |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
|
May |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
29
teaching |
|
May/June |
30 |
31 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
June |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
|
June |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
|
June |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
|
June/July |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
1 |
|
|
July |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
|
July |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
|
July |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
32
teaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
192 |
Key
|
|
190 teaching days |
|
|
2 training days |
|
|
bank holiday |
Appendix 3 Option B (193 days alternative)
|
|
Monday |
Tuesday |
Wednesday |
Thursday |
Friday |
|
|
Aug/Sep |
30 |
31 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1
training |
|
Sep |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
|
Sep |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
|
Sep |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
|
Sep/Oct |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
1 |
|
|
Oct |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
|
Oct |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
|
Oct |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
35
teaching |
|
Oct |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
|
Nov |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
Nov |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
|
Nov |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
|
Nov |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
|
Nov/Dec |
29 |
30 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
Dec |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
|
Dec |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
35
teaching |
|
Dec |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
|
Dec |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
Jan |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
1
training |
|
Jan |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
|
Jan |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
|
Jan |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
Jan/Feb |
31 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
Feb |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
28
teaching |
|
Feb |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
|
Feb |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
|
Feb/Mar |
28 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
Mar |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
|
Mar |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
|
Mar |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
24
teaching |
|
Mar/Apr |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
1 |
|
|
Apr |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
|
Apr |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
1
training |
|
Apr |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
|
Apr |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
|
May |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
May |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
|
May |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
|
May |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
33
teaching |
|
May/June |
30 |
31 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
June |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
|
June |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
|
June |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
|
June/July |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
1 |
|
|
July |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
|
July |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
|
July |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
35
teaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
193 |
Key
|
|
190 teaching days |
|
|
3 training days |
|
|
bank holiday |
School term dates
2004/05
Feedback Form
Which model of term dates would you prefer Norfolk LEA to adopt for school year 2004/05? Please place a tick or cross in the appropriate box.
Option A
The proposals of the Commission on the Organisation
of the School Year as published
Option B
Alternative model based on the Commissions proposals
Please provide any comments you wish to be taken into consideration:
Name: ..
Position: ..
School: .
Please return this form to Malcolm Reeve, c/o Strategic Core, Education Department, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2DL by Friday 14 March. This form is available on the Esinet Schools website.