The proposals for a six-term year put forward by the commission set up by the Local Government Association may sound radical but are anything but.

The commission’s chairman, Chris Price (“Little and often is best”, TES, December 21) dismisses the eminently senisble idea of a five-term year (without explanation!). Instead he puts forward a typical British compromise that achieves little.

Looking at Appendix 4 of the association’s report The rhythms of schooling, which shows a worked example of the six-term year for 20034, one is struck by the fact that virtually nothing has changed. The existing three-term year is simply split into six half-terms and renamed a six-term year.

In the autumn, the proposed “11-day” holiday between terms one and two in fact includes two Saturdays and two Sundays so is, in reality, a seven-day break (so much for a two week break). This gives an extra two days’ holiday in the long autumn term - not a lot of time for teachers to recover from stress and overwork. And that, quite frankly, is the only change.

It is difficult to see why so much time, energy and money has produced such a small change. We are left with a 71-day autumn term (sorry, terms one and two) with a seven-day break in the middle.

What of the spring term? Surprise, surprise - this is now called terms three and four with a five-day half term. No change there then (except, of course, the LGA call it a “nine-day” break counting weekends). The same is true of the summer term: a one week half-term break is now “holiday five” between two half-terms (sorry, terms five and six).

The net result is two extra days’ holiday in the autumn and a fixed break between spring and summer. Half-term breaks remain virtually unchanged at approximately one week while the length of terms in the autumn and spring varies. All this is a far cry from the even terms of a five-term year with evenly spaced two-week breaks every eight weeks!

Two basic questions are not answered by the LGA report:

* Where is the research that suggests the optimum learning periods? There should be evidence that, say, seven-year-olds learn best in a period of “x” weeks or that 14-year-olds learn best in a period of “y” weeks? Sadly it is missing. Such a fundamental omission casts doubts on the whole validity of the commission’s report and Chris Price’s TES article.

* If the authors of the report really believe that evenly spaced “short terms are the best, then why not advocate them? The six-term year is simply the existing system by another name.

The school year needs transforming: but, all we have is tinkering - a great British compromise that will cause maximum disruption with minimal learning gain.

We have working examples of a five-term year that offers exactly equal working periods - ideal for curriculum planning and delivery. This gives regular, two-week breaks that refresh teachers and students alike.

Why are we so reluctant to learn from this experience? We should have the courage to make a meaningful change to enhance learning. If we do not, then let’s just leave things as they are; the education system should be spared the illusion of change that the six-term year represents.

Professor Brent Davies is director of the International Leadership Centre at the University of Hull