MOVES that will see primary teachers spending 10% less time with their pupils will come as a surprise to parents and will cause “chaos and unhappiness”, according to the Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC).

Judith Gillespie, development manager of the SPTC said most parents were “blissfully unaware” of the plans which are part of the McCrone agreement on teachers’ pay and conditions. They were signed up to by teachers, councils and the Scottish Executive in January 2001 but only come into force when schools return this autumn.

Under the agreement, the amount of time primary teachers spend with pupils is to be cut from 25 hours per week to 23.5 hours by August this year, with a further cut to 22.5 by August 2006. The intention is to free up time for staff liaison, lesson planning and curriculum development.

However, Gillespie said many parents would be unhappy about and baffled by the development . She said: “There will be chaos and unhappiness. Parents weren’t even on the horizon when this was discussed. They are going to be asking, ‘When was this decided? Nobody said we want our children to have 10% shorter weeks.’

“Parents are not keen on measures like job-sharing and would tend to want the same teacher in front of their class for the entire year.”

The lack of consultation was par for the course, Gillespie said, despite the recent national education debate and the insistence from Scottish Executive ministers that they want to involve parents more.

“When they talk about involving parents it is always in terms of how much parents will support the educational system, and not the other way around,” said Gillespie.

“The [education] minister is writing constantly to us about involving parents but on issues like this they don’t bother talking to them. Well, thank you very much, we know where we stand.”

While teachers will argue that they need the additional time to prepare lessons and undertake additional training and development, parents would find it hard to understand why more time was needed away from pupils as 10 hours of the 35-hour week is already allocated for lesson preparation and marking. “One way of looking at it is that the time available for effective work with the child is being cut by 2.5 hours – there will be people who will see it like that,” Gillespie said.

In many schools the time that classes spend away from their teachers is likely to be filled with specialist teaching in areas such as music, art, drama or PE, which the SPTC concedes were areas parents wanted improved in the national education debate. “One of the messages which came out of that was people said they wanted more time available for sport and ‘aesthetic’ subjects – but people won’t be happy if it means that the school week is essentially being shortened.”

Meanwhile, those who already feel teachers have generous amounts of time off will be unimpressed. She added: “Parents think highly of teachers but I don’t think they are generally seen as being overworked.”

Concerns over the reduction in class contact time were also voiced by teachers at the recent AGM of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS). Delegates claimed some councils were asking headteachers to cover classes for the hour and a half per week which will no longer be taught by a class’s normal teacher.

EIS general secretary Ronnie Smith said there was anxiety among many teachers about how the agreement would be implemented to free up staff time, and that the picture varied from council to council .

“We are unhappy about some examples. In one of the worst cases it was suggested the headteacher could take an assembly and gather the whole school for an hour a week. That is crazy – it is not educationally sound. In fact it is educational Polyfilla and it won’t satisfy parents.”

Smith called for more use of specialists to enhance the primary curriculum, suggesting that areas such as foreign languages, science and PE were areas where provision in primary schools could be enhanced by visiting specialists.

He rejected any criticism of teachers for seeking more time away from pupils. “We have to get away from the idea that the only thing that matters in a teaching job is the teacher’s presence at the front of the classroom,” he said, arguing that many pressures on teachers’ time come from parents. Smith added: “It is wrong to see this as teachers getting an extra period in their contract so they can sit with their feet up and get a cup of coffee,” he said. “Parents want fuller information, better reports and easier access to their youngsters’ teachers.”

Kay Hall, president of the Association of Headteachers in Scotland, said the AHS would be writing to directors of education to seek reassurances that there would be sufficient cover for absent teachers. “There is enormous concern among headteachers that we are going to have to cover for absent teachers and there is a lack of confidence that they have produced enough teachers for this change.”

However, Colin Dalrymple, general secretary of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES) insisted councils were ready to bring in the new teaching hours. He conceded there would be teething problems with the new system but all parties had signed up to a reduction in class contact time for teachers under McCrone.

“It will mean teachers can be more effective. Meanwhile, this does not involve any change in the curriculum and youngsters will have the same contact time with adults and professionals as they always have,” said Dalrymple.

A spokesman for the Scottish Executive said £28.3 million had been invested to ensure the McCrone commitment on class contact time could be met: “We have put the resources in place to enable councils to meet this commitment and have not been told by any councils that they are not ready to begin implementation.

“Maximum class contact time is not about changing the number of hours pupils spend with teachers. Extra teachers will ensure pupils get the same amount of time with teachers, while enabling teachers to spend more time preparing for classes and assessing pupils’ work. The SPTC has never raised any concerns with us about this issue.”

20 June 2004