True to his word, Prime Minister John Howard has started to talk about social issues and less on economic matters, as he promised in his new year’s message. Last week he gave a broad-ranging Federation address. Like his pre-election headland addresses, the Federation address was long on generalities and short on specifics, with one notable exception. The exception was Mr Howard’s call for a change in school hours to mirror work hours more closely. He suggested that schools be open from 9am to 5pm.
Changes to school hours should not be dismissed out of hand. Knee-jerk reactions that Mr Howard is attempting to convert schools to glorified child-minding centres are unfair may have been made more out of self-interest by teachers than out of concern for parents and children.
Mr Howard has flagged the question of school hours before, in 1994. He suggested, then, that schools should more closely reflect work hours. But maybe Mr Howard is looking at the problem from the wrong end. He acknowledges that his idea of the extended school day stems from the fact that many women are working. He may have an idealised world where women are there to look after the children. The essential difficulty, though, is that both men and women have to work too long to keep families at a reasonable standard of living so there is less time for families, for being with children. That is unlikely to happen.
The 9am to 5pm has some merit, but it is fairly simplistic. It reveals Mr Howard’s lack of understanding and knowledge of the families he is aiming to support. Extending the school day will be only of marginal help for many parents who cannot get away from work to pick up their children to 6pm. Mr Howard’s world of people working from 9am till 5pm may have been true decades ago. In the modern globalised world, the working day goes much longer. Many parents will still need after school child care anyway. Moreover, the days of getting from the workplace to the school quickly are long gone. Many working parents have to battle public transport or traffic. To pick up their children. Then different families and different siblings have different needs. Some might go to music, football, martial arts. Others stay at school. Others are latch-key children happy to get their own way home and occupy themselves till a parent arrives. And in the case of others, neighbourhoods are not safe enough to allow children to wander alone.
The 9am to 5pm has other difficulties. Such a long day at school is not fair to the children if it is full-on schoolwork. However, if Mr Howard is talking about after-school programs for children that include sport and homework, rather than full-on school work, many parents would welcome it. But who is to staff it? Who is to pay for it? If we are talking about after school childcare free on school premises rather than in separate locations, many parents who take their children to child-care centres at great cost and inconvenience would welcome the plan. In effect, it might equalise the present typical difference between private and government schools. Private schools often have after-school activities not available to those who go to government schools.
The fact school hours are a state issue and the Coalition favours a stronger role for the states is another issue.
Mr Howard’s remarks also raise the question of whether school facilities would be better used if schools worked in shifts with a early start and a late start. That would help parents a great deal as at least one end of the day would be catered for.
In any event, Mr Howard’s foray into the social sphere is welcome. It will perhaps teach him about the complexity of the questions.