I came across a school that holds three-hour lessons with no breaks most of the time. Give your opinions please.
Personally I would avoid it like the plague. I've worked in a school where 90 minutes was the normal lesson length. Some of these lessons were doubled to make a three-hour lesson, which was just unbearable. Even the most focused kids, and the teaching staff to be honest, began to run out of steam after 40 minutes.
My worry would be that you only get to see the kids once a week or once a fortnight so you would spend a lot of time recapping the last lesson before you could move on.
Personally (sod the kids for a moment), I struggle with a two-hour double lesson. A chance to change class for teacher and child gives everyone a few minutes to stop and think (or not, as the case may be).
I worked in an academy that had three-hour lessons and it was hell, both for the kids and the teachers. Exam results by the end of the academy's first year were the worst in the country.
Three hours? Grim. I do lots of practical subjects and two hours is fine, but three? No.
I think I'd be asking the senior leadership team (SLT) to "model" some lessons - preferably three hours on a Friday afternoon with the most recalcitrant class in the school - so I'd know what to do.
A three-hour lesson is absurd. I agree that your SLT should show the way by doing it themselves.
I believe that long lessons are the biggest single cause of avoidable bad behaviour. Even with lots of changes of activity, children and staff inevitably wilt by the end.
You're going to need a flask and a strong bladder.
Join the debate at www.tes.co.ukforums.