School holidays

Michael Gove is right – basing school terms on the 19th century agricultural and industrial calendars is clearly nonsensical. What's less clear is what pattern would be best. I agree with the notion that shorter holidays with more intense terms makes sense, but I have no evidence for that beyond the fact that children do forget things over the summer, and that by the end of the autumn term everyone, teachers and pupils alike, is exhausted and not teaching or learning at their best. (If I had the time and the will, I'd analyse Ofsted reports and judgments to see if there is a relationship with the point in the school year and the outcome.)

But Michael Gove is wrong – this is a decision that cannot be left to individual schools. Far too many families have diaries that encompass more than one school for this to make sense. If mum is a teacher, dad is a school technician, and three children each attend different schools, a free for all falls apart. We would have more children taken out of school for family holidays – a self-defeating policy.

All that makes sense is for Michael Gove to decide what the pattern should be and impose it nationally. Bite the bullet, Secretary of State – make a decision and stand by it! Consult first, by all means, but decide! This is one of those areas where only a national pattern makes sense.

On the school day, the issues are less clear cut. I certainly don't believe that children will benefit from more and longer traditional lessons. But extension activities, library use, access to a quiet space to do homework, organised or individual sport, or just a space to to socialise would add value, especially to those young people who are in poverty and don't have their own space to work in peace at home.

If school were to start with breakfast at 8am and finish with a meal at 6pm I guarantee that there would be hugely positive outcomes – that's why state boarding schools do so well, and of course private schools.