Scottish councils have pushed back on government plans to cut teachers’ class contact time, arguing they are uncosted, untested, and oversimplify Scotland’s educational realities.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) has responded to recent proposals by Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth, revealing an estimated £250–£310 million in costs to reduce class contact time by 90 minutes. COSLA representatives say this estimate is based solely on the reduction in class contact time and cannot account for Mrs Gilruth’s other suggestions, including a possible four-day teaching week and wider adjustments to teachers’ terms and conditions.
COSLA has said that any potential policy for cutting contact time still lacks the necessary funding and clarity, and that the modelling the Scottish Government is using to support its approach does not reflect the varied makeup of Scotland’s schools.
The Scottish Government has previously rejected COSLA’s cost estimate, saying the figures “are not an accurate assessment of what is needed to begin implementation of reduced class contact".
They referenced an independent modelling report which, they said, illustrates how implementing a 90-minute reduction in class contact time can be “delivered in all primary schools, provided councils return to 2023 teacher numbers".
The report, published in May 2024, examines national-level staffing scenarios tied to pupil numbers and government targets, including reducing class contact time and adjusting the national pupil–teacher ratio. It presents high-level projections rather than an implementation plan, and does not distinguish between primary, secondary or special school staffing needs.
Read More:
- As budgets tighten, does Scotland really need more teachers?
- North Ayrshire considers teacher cuts amid budget pressures
- Gilruth accused of undermining teacher contract talks
COSLA officials say this modelling is problematic because it offers a whole-system analysis of Scotland as a single national unit, based on projected enrolment trends and future staffing levels, rather than a practical assessment of whether individual councils or schools can deliver reduced class contact time now.
The report itself acknowledges its purpose and limitations:
“To model the scenarios, we assume that all teachers in all school types currently have 22.5 hours of class contact time per week.
“In our modelling, we assume that class sizes will remain unchanged until 2035, so a change in the number of teachers relative to pupils will proportionately change teachers’ class contact time.
“Although this assumption is subject to certain simplifications, it lays the groundwork for further analysis.”
The Scottish Government has not confirmed whether any further analysis has been conducted since the report was published more than a year ago, even though it relied on this modelling to support claims made this month about what is needed to deliver reduced class contact time.
A spokesperson said: “This independent modelling work, while comprehensive, provides a useful reference point to develop our joint work with COSLA and other partners to deliver the proposals recently set out by the Education Secretary to reduce class contact time.
“Although teacher recruitment is a matter for local authorities, education is a key priority for the Scottish Government. That is why we are providing increased funding of £186.5 million to protect teacher numbers. This additional funding was agreed to by local government, with an understanding that they restore teacher numbers to 2023 levels and make ‘meaningful progress’ to reduce class contact time. We are continuing to work with unions and COSLA to agree an approach to this progress."
National picture blurs local realities
COSLA officials voiced concerns about the model, saying it effectively treats Scotland as “one massive school” where teachers and pupils can be allocated freely. This, they argue, ignores how education is delivered in highly localised systems shaped by geography, small-school structures, composite classes, subject availability, transportation constraints and timetable design.
They also point to difficulties in interpreting national pupil–teacher ratios (PTRs) as meaningful indicators of real capacity. Class sizes vary widely across primary stages, and even more so in secondary schools. Rural and island schools with single-digit enrolment figures, COSLA says, cannot be meaningfully represented in a national average.
Because of this, COSLA’s advisers argue that even if the national PTR falls—and theoretically frees teacher time—many individual schools will not see reductions where staffing pressures are already acute.
COSLA says this is why it continues to stand by its estimate that the most basic strategy for reducing class contact time could cost between £250–£310m a year. Officials say this range better captures the wide variety of operational costs, including the need for additional staff to supervise pupils while teachers gain non-contact time, as well as the transport implications in rural areas.
Even these figures may underestimate the complexity, officials say, because secondary supervision often requires subject-specific staff, and pupils with additional support needs (ASN) may require dedicated provision. Some schools may need to adjust timetables or merge classes to accommodate changes.
Teacher distribution is also uneven across Scotland. Persistent subject shortages at the secondary level, especially in STEM disciplines, continue to limit capacity. Some local authorities—such as Edinburgh—also operate an asymmetrical school week, creating further timetabling challenges.
Children's rights factor into the negotiations
In addition to these practical barriers, COSLA officials have raised concerns about the legal implications of implementing reduced class contact time, particularly around children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Now incorporated into Scots law, this requires young people to be more directly involved in decisions that directly affect their education.
Without concrete proposals and a clear direction, councils say they cannot carry out meaningful consultation. Some officials warn that proceeding without this could expose councils to legal challenge.
They said political pressure to deliver a long-promised reform comes with a legal obligation to get it right.
Both the government and local authorities agree that teacher workload should be addressed, but they disagree significantly on what it will take. As budget pressures tighten, as the Scottish Government approaches a self-imposed deadline for making progress, and as teaching unions threaten strike action over failure to reach a deal, the central question remains unanswered: who will pay – and how much – for the time teachers stand to gain, and how will Scotland’s schools absorb the change?
Share