2003/14: Should school hours be extended?

Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2003 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.

schools
hours
care

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.

2003/14: Should school hours be extended?

What they said ...
'I just think that school hours should reflect the modern reality of family structures'
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, speaking during a doorstop interview in South Australia in January 2000

'There's a limit to kids' concentration. You cannot expect them to spend eight or ten hours a day focused around classroom activities'
Mary Bluett, president of the Australian Education Union

The issue at a glance
In June and July of this year, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, proposed that school hours should be extended to provide after school care for children whose parents are both in the workforce.
On June 6, , 2003, Mr Howard addressed the Liberal Women's conference on work and family. Though a transcript of the address is not available on the Prime Minister's website, Mr Howard was reported to have said that conservative state oppositions should 'put the Bunsen burner' under Labor state governments on school hours.
Mr Howard claimed the current hours were 'anachronistic' and 'outdated'. He stated, 'We have school hours that were fashioned at a time when the overwhelming norm was one [income] to support a family. It (school hours) is something that is worth changing.'
On July 7, 2003, while speaking at the opening of the 2003 Australian Liberal Students' Federation Federal Convention, the Prime Minister stated, 'What I've got in mind perhaps is that, after school ends in a traditional sense, you can have a bit more supervised school activities... That would make a contribution to the growing problem of teenage obesity. You could have some supervised homework so that the time that parents spend with their children at night is not bedevilled by arguments over homework.'
Under the proposal, high schools would establish homework centres and out-of-hours care programs would be extended in primary schools.
Representatives from some parent and teacher organisations have expressed concerns about the idea.
An inter-departmental taskforce on work and family issues is examining the issue of school hours and after-school programs. It will make recommendations to the Prime Minister.
These recommendations will then be discussed with the states and territories, who are responsible for running schools. Though schools are the responsibility of the states, the Government is said to be looking at providing separate funding to set up the initiatives.

Background
Support for after school programs has been growing steadily within the United States for at least a decade. In the 2000 State of the Union Address, President Clinton proposed the largest-ever federal expenditure on after school programs, saying, "Let's double our investments in after school and summer school programs, which boost achievement and keep people off the streets and out of trouble."
Within the United States supporters of after school programs include child care professionals who believe young children need more supervision, educators who believe children need more academic instruction, and politicians who believe teens need more structured after school activities.
The Clinton administration's request to fund after-school programs was only a small part of a plan to expand the role of public schools. For example, the centrepiece of the administration's after school proposal was $1 billion(US) for the federal 21st Century Community Learning Center program. The program's purpose was to turn public schools into "learning centers" that, in addition to regular education, would provide after school care and at least four other services ranging from parent training and daycare to job training and health programs.
Interestingly, recent research within the United States has challenged a number of the assumptions on which after school programs are based.
In Australia before and after-school programs are run at primary level, usually by school councils (which comprise many parents) or community groups. Parents pay fees and may be eligible for the Commonwealth child-care rebate, the amount of the rebate depending on income.
The chairwoman of Community Childcare Victoria, Lynne Wannan, believes there is a need for more programs, particularly at secondary level. 'Twelve to 14-year-olds are most at risk (if they are unsupervised), and this is also a time when many parents are working,' she has said. 'But some schools are reluctant to operate these programs because they believe the children aren't their responsibility after 3.30pm.'
Outside-school-hours care is the fastest-growing form of childcare in the nation, with 167,000 children currently using the service - up from 153,000 in 1999.
The Howard Government clearly has no plans to establish school based child care programs and other school based initiatives of the scope envisaged in the United States. However, extending school hours as a means of providing additional child care places for school age children has been a scheme of Prime Minister Howard's since at least 2000 when he began making public statements about such developments.
Clearly the scheme has acquired more substance with the passing of time and perhaps even with John Howard's growing assurance about his hold on the office of Prime Minister. At least two other members of the cabinet have spoken out in support of John Howard's 2003 espousal of this proposal.
An inter-departmental taskforce on work and family issues is now examining the issue of school hours and after-school programs. It will make recommendations to the Prime Minister. The recommendations of the taskforce will then be discussed by the states and territories. The seriousness of the Government's interest in the proposal is shown by its apparent willingness to provide separate funding in order to finance it. The extent of this funding will be an important factor in determining whether the proposal is accepted by the states.

Internet information
On January 29 2000 the Prime Minister Mr Howard gave a doorstop interview at Port Lincoln, South Australia. During the interview Mr Howard commented on his wish to extend school hours to provide after school child care. A transcript of the interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2000/doorstop2901.htm
The interview covers a number of topics so the reader will need to scroll down the transcript in order to find the references to school hours.

On January 31 2000 the Prime Minister Mr Howard gave a radio interview on 2WEB Radio, Bourke, New South Wales. The Prime Minister again referred to his support for extended school hours. A transcript of the interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2000/2WEB3101.htm
The interview covers a number of topics so the reader will need to scroll down the transcript in order to find the references to school hours.

On February 1 2000 the Prime Minister Mr Howard gave a radio interview to Eurdice Eroni of Statewide. The Prime Minister outlines his proposal for extending school hours.
A full transcript of the interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2000/statewide0102.htm
The interview covers a number of topics so the reader will need to scroll down the transcript in order to find the references to school hours.

The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane. It is a non-profit public policy research foundation based in Washington, D.C.
On June 7, 2000, the Cato Institute, produced a policy analysis document titled, '12-Hour School Days? Why Government Should Leave After School Arrangements to Parents' The analysis is a description of the Clinton administration's 21st Century Community Learning Center program. It criticises a number of the assumptions upon which the program is founded.
The document can be found at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa372.pdf

On June 25 The Age published an analysis on extended school hours and child care. It was titled 'Push on school hours' and was written by Margaret Cook. It gives the Prime Minister's position on the issue, as well as that of the chairwoman of Community Childcare Victoria, Lynne Wannan. It also gives the views of Parents Victoria president Gail McHardy , those of a research fellow with RMIT University's centre for applied social research, Sara Charlesworth, and the opinions of the Australian Education Union's Victorian president, Mary Bluett, and a spokesman for State Education Minister, Lynne Kosky.
The analysis was not published in all editions of The Age, however, it can be found on the Internet at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/25/1056449291666.html
A Google cached version of this analysis can be found at http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:hvpEGdQPfq8J:www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/25/1056449291666.html+%2B%22Push+on+school+hours%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

On July 7 2003 the Prime Minister gave an address at the opening of the 2003 Australian Liberal Students' Federation Federal Convention, at Parliament House, Canberra.
In this address he outlined in some detail his desire to extend school hours so as to provide increased after school child care.
A full transcript of this address can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech333.html
Again, this address covers a wide range of issues and students will need to scroll down in order to find references to extended school hours.

On July 8 2003 New South Wales Federation of Parents' and Citizen's Associations issued a media release outlining its response to the Prime Minister's proposal to extend school hours. This is a brief document giving a clear and detailed critique of the Prime Minister's scheme.
A full copy of the media release can be found at http://ausissues.com/go/newsInformation/national/showNews/0/7017

On July 9, 2003, The Age published a comment on extended school hours and child care. It was titled, 'Kids: our dependable new energy source' and was written by Paul McDermott. It is a humorous, sustainedly ironic piece which would be useful for language analysis.
The comment was not published in all editions of The Age, however, it can be found on the internet at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/08/1057430187981.html
A Google cached version of this comment can be found at http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:OeZVJ5ZDsIkJ:www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/08/1057430187981.html+%26%238216%3BKids:+our+dependable+new+energy+source%26%238217%3B+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Arguments against schools extending their hours
1. Extending school hours could alienate children
It has been argued that extending school hours can lead to boredom and irritation with school and so alienate young people from those places where they were meant to be educated.
In an article by Christopher Bantick published in The Age on July 14, 2003, the writer notes, 'In the Prime Minister's thinking, there is little apparent consideration for children themselves. There is a danger that by extending the day, children who do not particularly like school will become increasingly negative, displaying frustration and associated poor behaviour. In this sense, ringing the bell later could do more harm than good.'
A similar observation has been made by Gail McHardy, president of Parents Victoria. Ms McHardy has observed, 'We don't want to switch kids off school. We want them to enjoy their education and enjoy learning.

2. Extending school hours could restrict some children's developmental opportunities
It has further been argued that for some children, being required to remain at school for additional hours may actually be a disadvantage. Some studies have indicated that the so-called 'latch-key' experience is not a negative one for many children and that many children are able to pursue hobbies and interests after school hours that they are less able to pursue within school.
Two young letter writers to The Age (one aged 9 and the other 10) put this view in a letter published in that paper on July 12. They argued, 'We are grade 4 students who are concerned about John Howard's idea to make the school hours longer. This is a bad idea because we would not be able to participate in our usual after-school activities. These are competition netball, music lessons and tennis lessons. These activities help us socially and are fun. Our brains are not fully developed. Children need time to chill out and do nothing. We are not adults. We should not have to go to school to fit into an adult working day.'

3. This proposal could undermine family life
There are those who argue that to facilitate parents remaining at work for longer hours each day and so limit the time they spend with their children will actually damage the family unit. According to this line of argument, parents and children need to interact together - preparing meals, eating, discussing homework activities, talking about the day. If this time is reduced while children remain for longer at school the family may be harmed.
A correspondent to the 'Your Say' section of The Age observed, 'This is absurd, where do you start. Tell me how many psychologists or whoever would recommend that children spend less time with their family.'
The New South Wales Federation of Parents' and Citizen's Associations has stated, 'Parents reject ... an extension to the school day where students are required to be engaged within the formal classroom setting. Any increase in these hours will clearly intrude on the valuable learning experiences gained outside the classroom and the important role that family plays in a child's development.'

4. School hours should be built around the capabilities of children
There are those who argue that the fact that in most countries school instruction time is approximately five hours is not an anachronism based on what once suited families in which there was traditionally a mother at home to collect children at the end of the school day. Rather, they argue, instruction time is typically about five hours because this is the maximum period of time for which children can reasonably be expected to concentrate. Though there are countries which have longer periods of instruction than does Australia, there are also many which have shorter. Interestingly, the average is around five hours.
This point has been made by the president of the Australian Education Union, Mary Bluett. Ms Bluett has stated, 'There's a limit to kids' concentration. You cannot expect them to spend eight or ten hours a day focused around classroom activities.'

5.Working hours should be modified to suit employees' family commitments
Some critics of the Government's proposal have noted that what is required is more family friendly work places, not stop gap expedients to supply child care. According to this line of argument, the Federal Government should be developing a set of policies which encourage flexible working hours, job sharing, maternity and paternity leave and other workplace provisions which would make it easier for parents to both work and raise their children.
The New South Wales Federation of Parents' and Citizen's Associations has stated, 'The provision of increased access to supervised care should be viewed as only one strategy in meeting the needs of the modern family. What Government has failed to do is develop any real policy that allows for a prominent role of the family within the increasing demands of working life.'
A correspondent to The Age's 'Your Say' segment on this issue noted, 'How about instead of extending school hours the government reform legislation to ensure that flexible working hours for parents be the choice of the individual and not the employer.'

6. The Federal Government may be attempting to avoid its responsibility to fund adequate before and after school child care
The New South Wales Federation of Parents' and Citizen's Associations has stated, 'Teachers are not there to fill the gap in child care services. The demand for additional child care places should be filled by appropriately trained child care workers with the provision of additional Federal funding.' Though acknowledging the need for further child care places and the suitability of schools as a venue for such child care the Federation is concerned that the federal government may only be seeking to reduce the cost of providing supervision for children in after school hours. The Federation has declared that it would only support the Government's proposal if it were properly funded.
The Federation's president, Sharryn Brownlee, has stated, 'This is the third time in the past few months that John Howard has promoted the issue of longer hours in schools. Not once, however, has John Howard committed his Government to any clearly documented funding support for such a proposal. If the current Federal Government is genuinely committed to increasing before and after school care places or an extension of school hours then it is time that funding be provided.'
Australian Education Union's Victorian president, Mary Bluett, has noted that there is a need for more before- and after-school care, but argues that funding cuts have forced some schools to close their programs. 'John Howard has indicated there is a problem, but he's not prepared to put resources into it,' she says. 'We're not opposed to his suggestion but he's putting it back on to schools to solve and, by inference, the State Government.'

7. Increasing school hours and giving schools a child care role would be an unreasonable extension of the function of schools
NSW Teachers Federation senior vice-president Angelo Gavrielatos said Mr Howard was out of touch in his call to extend hours as many schools already operated from before 8am till after 5pm.
'He (Mr Howard) clearly doesn't know that many of our high schools operate well beyond the 9 to 3 image, Mr Gavrielatos said. 'His comments are truly demeaning for the profession - teachers are not child minders.'
The New South Wales Federation of Parents' and Citizen's Associations has also stated that any attempt to increase school hours and require teachers to supervise children after school would add to 'the burden on the teaching profession, a profession increasing charged with the job of fixing society's problems. Teachers are not there to fill the gap in child care services.'
Further, Parents Victoria president Gail McHardy has claimed that not all schools have the space, infrastructure and resources to run new, or extend existing, programs. Other issues are whether their facilities comply with child-care regulations and whether the programs can be kept at an affordable cost for parents.

Arguments in favour of schools extending their hours
1. There is a large unmet need for before and after school child care
It has been claimed that there is a large shortfall between the availability of before and after school childcare places and the demand for such services.
The Bureau of Statistics recently estimated the parents of almost 50,000 children - 11,500 in Victoria - would be unable to find before or after-school child care if they wanted it.
National Out Of School Hours Services Association spokeswoman Robyn Monro-Miller has claimed that at least 25,000 new places were needed urgently.
The Government says its official waiting list for unmet demand, as measured by a special advisory committee, is 16,723 child-care places, 3000 of them in Victoria.
In this context there are many who believe that the Government's proposal that schools be utilised as before and after school child care centres is a good one.

2. Current school hours are anachronistic
It has been claimed that traditional school hours were put in place to suit a social reality that not longer exists. At a time when few women worked it was appropriate for schools to end their day at 3.00 or 3.30 because mothers would be available to collect their children and look after them during the post-school hours. Changed employment patterns mean that many children now live in families in which both parents work and so there is a significant time after school during which they are no longer supervised. Of Australia's two million two-parent families with dependent children, 1.2 million have both parents working. Thus, it is argued, current school hours are out of step with contemporary lifestyles.
In January 2000, Mr Howard noted, 'I just think that school hours should reflect the modern reality of family structures.
We have school hours in this country that were devised at a time when there were very few women in the work force and when the traditional thing was for children to be picked up at the school gate by mum at three o'clock.
Now that is increasingly not the case and all I'm asking is that State governments look at ways and means of ensuring that school hours are more in tune with the modern reality of family structures and family arrangements.'

3. Extending school hours could counter juvenile obesity
While speaking at the opening of the 2003 Australian Liberal Students' Federation Federal Convention the Prime Minister stated, ' ... after school ends in a traditional sense, you can have a bit more supervised school activities... That would make a contribution to the growing problem of teenage obesity.'
The plan also has the support of Youth Minister Larry Anthony, who is lobbying hard for the Federal Government to fund unlimited out-of-school-hours care places for primary students.
Mr Anthony also believes incorporating sports programs into out-of-school-hours care will make a big difference in the nation's fight against childhood obesity.
The Medical Journal of Australia has recently published a series of articles claiming 'the prevalence of overweight and obesity in children is increasing at an alarming rate on a national and international level. Overweight children are more likely to become overweight adults and to experience chronic health problems associated with adult obesity.'
The manner in which children spend their after school hours, both in terms of the type of food they consume and their opportunities for exercise have been identified as key factors in combating childhood obesity. It is in this context that Mr Howard's arguments regarding extending school hours have had additional appeal for some supporters.

4. Extending school hours would allow for supervised homework
The advantages of having teachers or other suitable people available to supervise homework after school hours has been noted by a number of parents. One pair of parents who corresponded with The Age's 'Your Say' segment noted, 'Our son is completing year twelve (VCE) this year.
Two afternoons a week he is able to stay back at his college to get extra help with Mathematics and Science. He would relish the opportunity to have access to his teachers under such a proposal to get further extra help.'
Another correspondent to the same segment also noted the advantages of having homework completed before children were under the care of their parents. This person noted, 'Some would argue that this proposal may reduce the time available for families to spend together. I however believe that if all homework is done at school, chances are there will be more opportunities for families to spend quality time together.'
This was one of the points originally made by Mr Howard in support of extended school hours. Mr Howard stated, 'You could have some supervised homework so that the time that parents spend with their children at night is not bedevilled by arguments over homework.'

5. This proposal could create work for additional teachers
On January 31 2000 during an interview on 2WEB Radio, Bourke, New South Wales, Mr Howard stated, 'I'm not asking that teachers necessarily work longer, I'm asking for more flexibility. It may in fact enable the recruitment of more teachers, it may be possible for shifts to be worked.'
On February 1 2000 during an interview for the ABC's Statewide with Euridice Eroni, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, stated, 'I don't envisage teachers working longer hours, in fact, I have in mind there might even be more teachers employed. They'd work different shifts. We just need more flexibility.'
According to this line of argument, increasing school hours could have the effect of making more jobs available in teaching.

6. Other nations have longer school hours
The amount of instruction time students receive in Victorian schools is 300 minutes or five hours per day. Supporters of longer school days in Australia claim that our school day is short compared to that of a number of other nations. The average school day in the United States is 5.6 hours excluding lunch and other breaks. In France it is 6.2 hours. In Ireland it is 5.4 and in Taiwan it is 5.3.
There is the implication that children may benefit from additional time at school and further that the taxpayers' investment in school facilities is being under utilised.

7. Schools are appropriate places to provide before and after school care
The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has stated, 'it is a natural fit for children to be cared for at school and more convenient for parents, rather than their being taken somewhere else.'
Similarly, the New South Wales Federation of Parents' and Citizen's Associations has stated, 'Clearly schools are in an ideal position to assist with the provision of such services. Positioning these services within schools eliminates the need for young children to travel outside the school environment. Facilities within the school grounds offer a continuity of the safe, nurturing environment that both parents and students are already comfortable with.'
Using schools to supply afternoon programs for the children of working parents has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the United States. President Clinton painted a particularly positive picture of schools as community centres which could provide services outside conventional school hours.
The President stated, '"Our schools are critical to bringing our communities together. We want them to serve the public not just during school hours but after hours: to function as vital community centers; places for recreation and learning . . . gathering places for young people and adults alike.'
The chairwoman of Community Childcare Victoria, Lynne Wannan, has sated, 'Schools are part of the community and they have a responsibility to make sure children are cared for. This includes making sure they have a safe, constructive place to go to if their parents are working.'

Further implications
It seems highly likely that a series of recommendations regarding extended school hours will be put to the various state and territory governments before the end of the year. The devil will be in the detail. If the proposals seem adequately funded they may meet with some support.
To avoid industrial disputes with teacher unions there would need to be guarantees that the proposals would not place further demands on teachers. Additional qualified staff would need to be employed to perform the additional work that such child care arrangements would create.
Critics have noted that Australia is already facing a crisis in teacher numbers because of an aging teaching population. Forty percent of teachers are expected to retire in the next ten years. It has further been claimed that to this point the Howard Government has done nothing to create further training places for teachers.
Further, the Prime Minister's references to 'flexibility' and 'shift work' are likely to provoke opposition from teacher unions if they lead to teachers being required to work a variety of shifts in order to staff child care services.
Many parents are apparently seeking flexibility in their own working arrangements to allow them to take better care of their children. It would be ironic if the Federal Government were to attempt to impose 'flexibility' on teachers who don't want it while denying it to other working parents who do.
Given that education is a State responsibility any Federal scheme that is not adequately funded or is likely to cause industrial unrest would not go ahead as it would not gain the States' support.
It would be to the Howard Government's political advantage if the public debate surrounding this issue were to make it appear that the States were being uncooperative and blocking a reasonable attempt on the part of the Federal Government to address the problem of after school child care.

Sources
The Age
6/6/03 page 5 news item by Phillip Hudson, 'Child-care onus on schools'
8/7/03 page 5 news item by Farrah Tomazin, 'Parents warn on school-hours plan'
10/7/03 page 12 letter from Cathie Hutchinson, 'We need to do more homework on homework'
12/7/03 page 10 letter from Alexandra Davies and Georgia Mort, 'Please, we're kids'
14/7/03 page 6 news item by David Wroe, 'ALP pledges $161m for teacher void'
14/7/03 page 11 comment by Christopher Bantick, 'A longer day could be a danger for kids'
21/7/03 page 12 (Education Age) analysis, 'Adopting office hours'

The Australian
7/6/03 page 5 news item by Terry Plane, 'PM rings bell on "dated" school hours'
7/6/03 page 5 news item by Sascha Hutchinson, 'Nelson backs plan for flexible day'
27/6/03 page 3 news item by Caitlin Fitzsimmons, 'Quality tests on outside-school care'
7/7/03 page 2 news item by Duncan Macfarlane, 'PM must pay to extend school hours, says Beattie'

The Herald Sun
6/7/03 page 7 news item by Simon Kearney and Tony Rindfleisch, 'Bid for longer school days'
7/7/03 page 17 cartoon by Sean Leahy
7/7/03 page 18 editorial, 'Staying in after class'